1 2 3 THE INQUIRY INTO PEDIATRIC FORENSIC 4 PATHOLOGY IN ONTARIO 5 6 7 8 ******************** 9 10 11 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE STEPHEN GOUDGE, 12 COMMISSIONER 13 14 15 16 Held at: 17 Offices of the Inquiry 18 180 Dundas Street West, 22nd Floor 19 Toronto, Ontario 20 21 22 ******************** 23 24 January 23nd, 2008 25

2
  1                        Appearances
  2  Linda Rothstein      (np) )     Commission Counsel
  3  Mark Sandler              )
  4  Robert Centa         (np) )
  5  Jennifer McAleer     (np) )
  6  Johnathan Shime            )
  7  Ava Arbuck           (np) )
  8  Tina Lie             (np)  )
  9  Maryth Yachnin       (np)  )
 10  Robyn Trask          (np)  )
 11  Sara Westreich       (np)  )
 12  
 13  Brian Gover          (np) )     Office of the Chief Coroner
 14  Luisa Ritacca             )     for Ontario
 15  Teja Rachamalla      (np) )
 16  
 17  Jane Langford        (np) )     Dr. Charles Smith
 18  Niels Ortved         (np) )
 19  Erica Baron               )
 20  Grant Hoole          (np) )
 21   
 22  William Carter       (np) )     Hospital for Sick Children
 23  Barbara Walker-Renshaw(np) )
 24  Kate Crawford             )
 25

3
  1                   APPEARANCES (CONT'D)
  2  Paul Cavalluzzo      (np) )     Ontario Crown Attorneys'
  3  Veena Verma          (np) )     Association
  4  
  5  Mara Greene          (np) )     Criminal Lawyers'
  6  Breese Davies        (np)  )    Association
  7  Joseph Di Luca       (np) )
  8  Jeffery Manishen      (np) )
  9  
 10  James Lockyer        (np) )     William Mullins-Johnson, 
 11  Alison Craig               )    Sherry Sherret-Robinson and
 12  Phillip Campbell     (np) )     seven unnamed persons
 13  Peter Wardle              )     Affected Families Group
 14  Julie Kirkpatrick     (np) )
 15  Daniel Bernstein          )
 16  
 17  Louis Sokolov        (np) )     Association in Defence of
 18  Vanora Simpson             )     the Wrongly Convicted
 19  Elizabeth Widner      (np) )
 20  Paul Copeland         (np) )
 21  
 22  Jackie Esmonde        (np) )     Aboriginal Legal Services 
 23  Kimberly Murray      (np) )     of Toronto and Nishnawbe
 24  Sheila Cuthbertson    (np) )      Aski-Nation
 25  Julian Falconer      (np) )

4
  1                 APPEARANCES (cont'd)
  2  Suzan Fraser       (np)   )     Defence for Children 
  3                             )     International - Canada
  4  
  5  William Manuel     (np)   )     Ministry of the Attorney
  6  Heather Mackay            )     General for Ontario
  7  Erin Rizok                 )
  8  Kim Twohig          (np)   )
  9  Chantelle Blom     (np)    )
 10  
 11  Natasha Egan       (np)   )     College of Physicians and 
 12  Carolyn Silver     (np)   )     Surgeons
 13  
 14  Michael Lomer      (np)    )    For Marco Trotta
 15  Jaki Freeman        (np)   )
 16  
 17  Emily R. McKernan   (np)   )    Glenn Paul Taylor
 18  
 19  Michelle Booth             )    Robert Wood
 20  
 21  
 22  
 23  
 24  
 25

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 2 3 ROBERT WOOD, Sworn 4 5 Examination-In-Chief by Mr. Mark Sandler 7 6 Cross-Examination by Ms. Erica Baron 188 7 Cross-Examination by Ms. Vanora Simpson 202 8 Cross-Examination by Mr. Daniel Bernstein 209 9 Cross-Examination by Ms. Heather MacKay 249 10 Cross-Examination by Ms. Luisa Ritacca 257 11 Re-Direct examination by Mr. Mark Sandler 277 12 13 14 15 16 Certificate of transcript 285 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 --- Upon commencing at 9:41 a.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: All Rise. Please be 4 seated. 5 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Good 6 morning. Mr. Sandler...? 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: Good morning, 8 Commissioner, the next witness is Dr. Wood. I'd ask that 9 he be sworn in as a witness, please. 10 11 ROBERT WOOD, Sworn 12 13 MR. MARK SANDLER: Commissioner, Dr. 14 Wood's counsel, Ms. Booth, is here, and perhaps she could 15 address you just briefly before we commence the evidence? 16 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Yes, Ms. 17 Booth? Yes, we only work with the microphone over there, 18 Ms. Booth. Apart from that, everybody is mute. 19 MS. MICHELLE BOOTH: Well, I wouldn't 20 want that then. 21 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Yes. 22 MS. MICHELLE BOOTH: Good morning. I 23 just wanted to -- sorry to interrupt. Of course, Dr. 24 Wood is here voluntarily and more than happy to assist 25 the Commission, but I'm sure, as most people are aware,

1 there is some outstanding civil litigation. 2 And so just for the sake of continuity and 3 for me to be as disruptive as -- as little as I can, I 4 just wanted to assert Dr. Wood's protection under section 5 Section -- under the Public Inquiries Act, which also 6 references Section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act, although 7 I don't think that applies in this case, as well as the 8 Evidence Act of Ontario, his Section 9 protection is 9 asserted there. 10 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Thank -- 11 MS. MICHELLE BOOTH: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: -- Thank 13 you. 14 15 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: Thank you very much. 17 Dr. Wood, you have in front of you a binder of documents, 18 and if I can ask you to go to Tab 1 of the binder -- and 19 I'll be referring to the PFP numbers that you see at the 20 top of the page. 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: And this is PFP302884. 23 And this as I understand it is your curriculum vitae, is 24 that correct? 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's my curriculum

1 vitae. It's a -- it's an academic curriculum vitae. 2 It's got a couple of additions to it, but then a couple 3 talks in the interim since when I give it to Mr. Centa, 4 and I omitted one (1) talk I did on child abuse last 5 summer to the Ontario Police College, but -- 6 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. I think 7 I'll serve our purpose well then. 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: I'm going to take you 10 to just some of the features of the curriculum vitae, and 11 I can tell you the Commissioner has -- has the entire 12 document available to -- to him. 13 As I understand it from page 1 of the 14 document, you graduated from the Faculty of Dentistry, 15 University of Toronto in 1982. 16 Is that right? 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's correct. 18 MR. MARK SANDLER: And you became a 19 doctor of dental surgery as a result? 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's correct. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: You graduated from the 22 Faculty of Dentistry School of Graduate Studies, also at 23 the University of Toronto in 1986? 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 25 MR. MARK SANDLER: And you graduated as

1 well, from the Faculty of Dentistry, University of 2 Stellenbosch in Cape Town, South Africa in 1996? 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's right. 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: As reflected under 5 degrees and qualifications, in 1986 you became a member 6 of the Royal College of Dentists in Canada? 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: In 1988 you obtained 9 your specialist certification in Oral and Maxillofacial 10 Radiology, Royal College of Dental Surgeons in Ontario? 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It's actually now the 12 Royal College of Dentists of Canada. 13 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. That was 14 it's designation as it was in 1988 I take it? 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I'm -- I'm not actually 16 sure. 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. What by 18 the way is oral and maxillofacial radiology? 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well radiologists use 20 images to diagnosis and treat patients, and oral and 21 maxillofacial radiologists use images, plain films, 22 tomographs, and now some CT scans and MRI to diagnosis 23 diseases basically of the maxillofacial area. 24 So the area above -- above the larynx and 25 below the base of skull, including orthodontic films,

1 implant radiology and diseases which is primarily what I 2 do as someone who works in oncology. 3 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. And I see that 4 in 1993 you became a fellow of the Royal College of 5 Dentists of Canada? 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's correct. 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: In 2004, skipping down 8 for a moment, you obtained your diploma from the American 9 Board of Forensic Odontology? 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's right. 11 Actually, I wrote the exam, and passed it in 2003. And 12 that was approximately ten (10) years after I started 13 doing forensic -- forensic dentistry, and I was awarded 14 at the 2004 annual -- annual meeting. 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: And can you describe 16 for the -- for the Commissioner, because as I -- as I 17 understand it, there is no certification, or speciality 18 program that exists of like measure in Canada presently. 19 Am I right as to that? 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: There's no -- there's 21 no -- first of all, it's not a recognized speciality in 22 Canada. There are many recognized specialities in 23 forensic odontology. If we -- we can call it, for 24 everybody's -- just to help everyone to call it -- just 25 call it forensic dentistry.

1 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Then -- then there is 3 no rec -- recognized speciality of forensic dentistry in 4 Canada. There isn't one (1) in the Untied States either. 5 There are certification Boards, one (1) of 6 which is the American Board; the other one (1) is Diploma 7 -- Diploma and Medical Jurispr -- Jurisprudence in 8 Britain that one can sit. It takes approximately ten 9 (10) years of experience to get enough case material 10 together to have enough body of knowledge to -- to sit 11 the Board examination, which is a two (2) day Board 12 examination. 13 And after that, if you pass the 14 examination, which include -- includes a clinical 15 component, a written component, a multi-station bell 16 ringer component, and oral examination over the course of 17 a day and a half, you either pass or you fail your 18 American Board exams. 19 MR. MARK SANDLER: It probably doesn't 20 matter terribly much to the work of the Inquiry, but what 21 is a multi-stage bell ringer? I have to ask. 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's where you have - 23 - that you would say, around this room you would have 24 maybe thirty (30) stations with cases: bite mark cases, 25 non-bite mark cases, identification cases, and you would

1 -- you would be asked specific questions about -- about a 2 series of say documents or images, and -- and complete 3 your answer, and then move onto the next station after a 4 defined period of time. 5 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Do you 6 know how many certified forensic odontologists exist in 7 Canada at present? 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: There are currently -- 9 there are -- there are actually five (5) people who are 10 listed in the listings, but there are four (4) people who 11 are -- who are still active. Three (3) of us are -- are 12 particularly active: one (1) in Montreal, one (1) in 13 Toronto, one (1) in Vancouver. 14 There's another fellow in Calgary, Dr. 15 Bill Blair. I'm not sure whether Dr. Blair has retired 16 yet. I'm the youngest. 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And -- and 18 is there anyone else in Ontario? 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. And we also see 21 that in 2004, you became a fellow of the American Academy 22 of Forensic Sciences. 23 Is that right? 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's correct. 25 MR. MARK SANDLER: Now, under positions

1 currently held at the bottom of page 1 and extending into 2 page 2, we see that at present you're on the active staff 3 of the Dental Clinic at Princess Margaret Hospital here 4 in Toronto. 5 And -- and I take it that's the reference 6 to the oncology work that you -- that you perform at 7 present? 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's right. I am 9 full time -- I'm actually the Department Head now. I'm 10 the full time dentist who treats only oncology patients 11 with some patients from the General, who's dental clinic 12 is closed, with pre-cardiac surgery, pre-double lung 13 transplant, pre-kidney, pre-liver transplant. So my 14 practice is limited completely to people who are very 15 ill. 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't see any 18 quote/unquote "normal" people. 19 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Probably 20 includes your questioner. 21 And then at page 2, we see that you are 22 also the Associate Professor and Associate Member of the 23 Graduate Faculty at the Faculty of Dentistry here at the 24 University of Toronto. 25 Is that right?

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's correct. 2 MR. MARK SANDLER: We also see that you 3 hold the position of Chief of Forensic Dentistry, Office 4 of the Chief Coroner, Ministry of the Solicitor General 5 and Attorney General. 6 And as I understand it, you've held the 7 position as Chief of Forensic Dentistry since the year 8 2000, am I right? 9 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's correct. 10 MR. MARK SANDLER: Now can we just stop 11 there for a moment, and can you describe for the 12 Commissioner what the duties are as the Chief of Forensic 13 Dentistry, for the Chief Coroner's Office? 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, there's -- 15 there's two (2) sets of duties. 16 The first set of duties is to provide 17 forensic dental services to the gov -- to the Chief 18 Coroners Office. So that would include largely body 19 identification, pro -- providing a -- an organized 20 service in mass disaster body identification; 21 age/sex/race determination. Using the teeth is a 22 particularly good way of doing age/sex/race determination 23 in sub-adults. 24 We have set up a program for looking at 25 identifying our long term, quote/unquote, "cold case

1 unidentified bodies", human bite marks, pattern injuries 2 to a certain extent. 3 And then there -- the other component is 4 to look after, if you like, or shepherd the other 5 forensic dentists in the Province, which really only 6 started in about 2000, where we -- we formerly had a 7 system where dentists who we weren't aware were doing 8 forensic identification cases, for example, were doing 9 them. 10 And -- and in around 2000, I don't know 11 the exact date, we decided that we would -- we would 12 limit the number of dentists doing forensic dentistry, 13 only inasmuch as we wanted to know who was doing it and 14 whether they were qualified, so we vetted by curriculum 15 vitae and case experience four (4) or five (5) dentists 16 geographically spaced across the Province who would be 17 suitable to do forensic dentistry in the Province. 18 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: These were 19 dentists, Dr. Wood, who were doing forensic work at the 20 behest of investigating coroners or something? 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's correct. They 22 were all doing -- they were all doing it anyway. And so 23 we had vetted those four (4), including myself, and then 24 another fellow in Thunder Bay. And then in some cases 25 they -- they would have what we call a second, so if

1 they're away on holidays, I don't have to go down to 2 London or up to Ottawa to -- 3 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- do a body, so that 5 we'd have a -- they would -- they would identify a 6 suitable second in command if they were away on vacation. 7 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: And then 8 you'd keep that list at the Office of the Chief Coroner 9 and investigating coroners access it? Is that the way 10 they access forensic dentistry? 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: There -- there actually 12 is no list, to my knowledge, like an actual list, but -- 13 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- it's my 15 understanding that the coron -- the Regional Coroners 16 understand who they can go to. 17 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Who is on 18 your list? 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Now, individual 20 investigating coroners, I'm not certain, I'm not sure. 21 And of course, police agencies, I'm not sure what they -- 22 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- they have no control 24 over who they use. 25 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right.

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: And I have been 2 contacted in the past by police forces, I can't think of 3 it specific who -- who said that, you know, they talked 4 to their dentist about this and -- and got an opinion 5 from their dentist, who is a general practitioner, 6 inevitably. And -- 7 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- and so that's -- I 9 think we've come a long way with developing a system of 10 sort of a, quote/unquote, "approved people" to do -- 11 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: So quality 12 assurance -- 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Exactly. 14 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: -- going 15 in? 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Exactly, exactly. 17 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: And how did 18 you go about the approval? Looking at the experience of 19 the individuals? 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's -- that's -- 21 they submitted their CVs and we looked through them. I 22 know -- 23 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: You would 24 know most of them? 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I knew them personally

1 anyway. One's a former Dean at the University of Western 2 Ontario, one (1) of them's a -- now on staff at the 3 University of Toronto, and -- and the one (1) in Ottawa 4 has had a longstanding relationship with the Coroner's 5 Office. The fellow in Thunder Bay I knew personally; 6 he's also a dental specialist and he's -- you know, he 7 has a decent CV and he's a decent character and I knew 8 him -- I -- so I knew them all, except for -- 9 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Is this on- 10 the-job experience or do many of them have the training 11 you have in forensic dentistry? 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, none of them have 13 -- well, I shouldn't say that none of them have the 14 training, but none of them certainly have -- have written 15 their board exams. Most of this is learned on a sort of 16 a mentoring basis, in a case-by-case basis. 17 There's not a -- there are short courses 18 that people can take, Mr. Commissioner, and they can go 19 on either internet based, if you like, or they can go to 20 short conferences that are advertised, American -- the 21 Armed Forces Institute of Pathology offers one (1) in 22 Washington. It was very good, but it's a week long, but 23 you can't possibly learn everything in a week. 24 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: So I learned by, for

1 lack of a better word, tagging along with my predecessor, 2 who trained me in radiology, Dr. Doug Stoneman, and I 3 went for -- whenever he had a forensic case I would go 4 with him. And when I was in South Africa I had a similar 5 mentor, Professor Narkia (phonetic). 6 And that's the way you learn. It's -- you 7 learn by cases, but, you know, you also obviously -- I 8 prefer if the -- if the forensic dentist here at the 9 point -- someone who wants to be a forensic dentist has 10 gone through obviously dental schools, so they're a 11 licensed dentist in good standing. I'd prefer that they 12 have gone through or associated with a University. 13 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Yes. 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I'd prefer if they have 15 had a graduate training program in a diagnostic science, 16 either pathology or radiology. And I'd prefer that they 17 have done some research or some academ -- have some 18 academic interest in moving the yardsticks, if you like. 19 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: And that's what I'd 21 prefer. When I call -- I get a lot of calls, Mr. 22 Commissioner, from people who are bored, who -- who don't 23 want to do general practice any more and they -- they 24 think there's something particularly, for lack of a 25 better word, sexy about forensics, and those are people

1 that I -- I tend to shy away from. And I explain to them 2 that it isn't like CSI or it isn't like television, it's 3 totally different. It's a public service and academic 4 stimulation. And if that's the reason you do it -- 5 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. Is 6 forensic dentistry a part of the undergraduate dental 7 program at all? 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I give one (1) lecture 9 to the University of Toronto undergraduate program -- 10 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Yes. 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- and it -- I -- I 12 change it from year to year. The main thrust of it is 13 telling the dentists what their responsibility is under 14 the Coroner's Act with respect to providing records in 15 cases of body identification. 16 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Occasionally I'll put 18 in a bite mark. Occasionally I'll -- I'll put in a civil 19 litigation case; that's another aspect of forensic 20 dentistry, where -- 21 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- you know -- you 23 know, a case that might have come about -- and I'll 24 actually ask them to take sides in the civil litigation 25 case. I'll present the evidence and say, How -- which --

1 which way are you leaning now, and then give them more 2 evidence, and -- and more -- and then see -- see where 3 they sit. 4 So it depends on -- they get a -- a basic 5 of knowledge of what their obligations are under the 6 Coroner's Act. In fact, I always tell them if there's 7 going to be an examination question, it's going to be, 8 What are my responsibilities under the Coroner's Act, and 9 then I give them the answer. 10 And -- and so if nothing else, it makes me 11 a popular lecturer. But it -- they know -- they're given 12 the -- what their responsibilities are under the 13 Coroner's Act. 14 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: And that's just the 16 under graduate. In graduate training, I've had a -- I 17 just finished a PhD -- supervising or co-supervising a 18 PhD student who did her PhD dissertation on calculating 19 the error rates in human bite mark analysis in -- in 20 vivo, which was a -- I think, a groundbreaking study. 21 And she's just completed that. She's just 22 bound her thesis and she's in the process of -- she'll be 23 presenting that at the end of next month in -- in 24 Washington. And then following -- hopefully thereafter 25 there'll be a publication in the journal.

1 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: So there's a graduate 3 component to it when I'm asked to take on a graduate 4 student. 5 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. The 6 one (1) other question I had -- sorry, Mr. Sandler -- is 7 when you took on the job of Chief Forensic Dentistry for 8 the Chief Coroner, did you have a predecessor, or was it 9 created at that point? 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It was created. And 11 the reas -- and part of the reason it was created was 12 that -- the vetting process, and I think part of the 13 other reason it was created was the fact that I -- I was 14 out on my own, if you like, exposed. And I -- I do a lot 15 of Children's Aid cases. 16 I do many Children's Aid cases and -- and 17 in those Children's Aid -- in the Children's Aid cases, 18 most of those cases are not deceased individuals and I 19 needed some anchor point to anchor me in the Coroner's 20 Office. Because those Children's Aid cases, if you 21 render an opinion, I'm -- I'm exposed, I'm legally 22 exposed as a -- doing Children's Aid cases, and I wanted 23 people to know that -- that this was the formal 24 affiliation I had -- 25 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right.

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- with the Coroner's 2 Office. 3 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. How 4 much of your work week is spent doing that as opposed to 5 your Princess Margaret duties? 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Very little. I mean 7 I'm -- I'm department head now at Princess Margaret, so 8 I'm -- 9 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: So you have 10 no extra time? 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I have -- I have just 12 got an apartment downtown, because I am very busy, but I 13 -- I consider myself to be on call 24/7 with the 14 Coroner's Office. 15 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I was there on 17 Christmas Day doing an identification. If they call me, 18 I go. It doesn't matter -- 19 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Over the 20 course of a year, if you had to -- 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I'd -- 22 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: -- slice up 23 your work year, what would you say? 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- I'd do about -- last 25 year I did sixty-three (63) body identifications and --

1 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Would that 2 be 10 percent of your time or...? 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah, max -- it 4 wouldn't even -- it wouldn't be even that I don't think. 5 Well, maybe about 10 percent. 6 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Okay. 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. 8 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Thanks. 9 Thanks, Mr. Sandler. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: Just arising out of 13 that question, what is the fee structure that exists for 14 the work that you do in forensic dentistry? 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: The fee structure with 16 the Coroner's Office is -- is basically a per case. You 17 pay on a per case basis and break -- you break it down 18 into how many hours it -- it takes you to do the case. 19 It's another thing we standardized when we went to a 20 select group of dentists. 21 And it basically amounts to about four 22 hundred (400) or a little better than four hundred 23 dollars ($400) per -- for a case -- for an identification 24 case. A bite mark case might go higher than that. And 25 of course civil litigation would be higher than that,

1 because it's a lot more involved. And then I also do 2 some consulting for drug companies in legal liability 3 cases, and that of course if much higher again, because 4 there's a lot more work. 5 So it's basically per hour, per case. 6 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And do you 7 do work for the criminal defence bar on occasion? 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I do. I've done work 9 for your firm I think as well. And Breese Davies firm, 10 I've done work for her and others. 11 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Now I was 12 taking you through the -- your curriculum vitae, and I -- 13 I can't possibly do justice to the -- the various papers, 14 and publications, and presentations, and books, and book 15 contributions, and reviews, and reviewed articles 16 submitted, instructional video tapes, published letters, 17 and research projects, but they're all there for -- for 18 all to see, including some hundred and twenty-two (122) 19 publications. 20 But I'd like to just ask you about several 21 of them, if I may. 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 23 MR. MARK SANDLER: And -- and if we can 24 go together to page 11 of your curriculum vitae, we see - 25 - these are some of the addresses that you've given, and

1 we see the top item, "Wound Weapon Pattern Analysis Using 2 Computed Tomography in Three (3) Cases of Blunt Force 3 Injury to the Cranium," which was a presentation together 4 with others, including Dr. Chiasson, and Barry 5 Blenkinsop. 6 Can you explain what wound weapon pattern 7 analysis involves, and -- and where that fits into your 8 expertise as a forensic odontologist? 9 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, that actually 10 probably stems more from my expertise as a radiologist. 11 And that presentation was done there, and it was done 12 again -- done around 1996 in Capetown, South Africa. 13 Hard tissue wound weapon analysis is 14 basically looking at the impact injury made say by a 15 hammer, or a tire iron, what have you, on the cranium. 16 And the -- the way we handle that is we -- we use CT 17 scans. 18 And -- and to put it in an understandable 19 way: CT scans are slices, like slices of bread, and so 20 what we do is we -- excuse me -- we make a model of the 21 weapon, if you like, or the putative weapon, say a -- the 22 face of a hammer, out of methamethacrylate, which is a 23 dental material. We use that because it's the right 24 atomic weight for the CT scan. We can't use metal in a 25 CT scan, because it -- it just creates too much artifact.

1 So we make a -- a reproduction of the 2 weapon, and we either use the actual piece of skull, or a 3 model of the skull. And we can -- you know, you could 4 sit there and play with that wound weapon interface, and 5 you could feel that it fits if you like, but that's not a 6 very objective way of looking at it. 7 So what you can do is you can position 8 that in the -- the wound -- the weapon in the wound, in 9 the manner that it appears to fit, or doesn't fit, or 10 it's best fit, put it in the gantry of a CT scanner, and 11 then take slices through it, so that you can see at each 12 millimetre, or fraction of millimetre, how well that 13 weapon, if you like, or that instrument fits within that 14 -- that indentation. 15 So you cannot be in that interface between 16 the -- the wound and the -- and the weapon, but with the 17 CT scan, it allows you to look on a -- on a film, if you 18 like, to see okay, here it fits, here it fits, here it 19 fits, or it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. 20 So it's just a -- it's a tool that's used 21 to -- to examine the degree of fit -- 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- of a -- of a 24 particular devise. 25 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Then we

1 see at the bottom of the same page, an address on the 2 comparison of fatal feral and domestic dog attack, and 3 that seems to be referred to in a variety of ways in your 4 curriculum vitae. 5 Did -- did that arise out of a specific 6 case? Or -- or help me out as to that. 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. There were two 8 (2) cases. One (1) was an attack by a -- it was an 9 interesting case -- it was a fatal attack by two pit 10 bulls on a man in Toronto. And he had had I think three 11 (3) interactions with these particular dogs and had 12 tormented them, and they eventually killed him. 13 And the other one was a case in I believe 14 up near Algonquin Park of a woman who, for some reason I 15 don't know, went into a pen containing, I believe it was 16 five (5) wolves that were being reacclimatized to the 17 wild. They were brought in from, I think, Michigan, and 18 they were being reacclimatized for release into the wild. 19 And she for some reason went into the pen, and they 20 attacked and -- and partially consumed her. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And were 22 those cases that took place before your involvement in 23 what we call the Sharon case, or after, or do you recall? 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. It was before, I 25 believe. Yeah.

1 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. All right. And 2 then just looking at the file area in your curriculum 3 vitae that I'm going to ask you about, and that is at 4 page 37. 5 At page 37 and following, you've -- you've 6 listed some cases in which you have been Court qualified 7 to give expert testimony and -- and it includes expert 8 testimony as a bite mark expert, or in bite mark 9 analysis, and -- and it also includes at page 38, 39, and 10 40 qualification as an expert in wound or weapon 11 etiology; weapon comparison. And at page 40, 12 "expert on wound weapon analysis and 13 stab wounds to the head." 14 And -- and the reason I ask you about this 15 is -- is again, to some -- get some sense between where 16 you see the -- the bounds of your expertise. 17 Looking at the last one, "wound weapon 18 analysis and stab wounds," would that be the kind of work 19 that you described earlier to the Commissioner involving 20 the use of CT Scans or is that something else? 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That particular case on 22 page 40, the so-called Jonathon case, that was a -- in -- 23 in blunt force trauma cases where you have a large 24 implement that dents the skull, you can use CT scans. 25 In cases where there are knives, knives

1 obviously have a finer -- they have a finer edge, you -- 2 you cannot use CT scans for two (2) reasons: one (1), 3 you can't use the knife because it will -- it will have 4 tremendous artifact in the CT scan, and the second thing 5 is you can reproduce the knife edge because it's too 6 fine, so you cannot use CT scans for knife injuries. 7 So what you do then is you take -- you 8 take an impression of the skull and you -- which in the 9 Jonathon case, that's how I started out and it was just 10 Dr. Pollanen asked me to some over and take impressions 11 of the skull, which I did and -- and you would basically 12 make, if you like, a death mask of the skull, and I made 13 two (2) of them. And then after that I was asked to 14 comment whether three (3) potential weapons could have 15 fit. 16 At that point really you're looking at 17 just purely the degree of fit based on -- on personal, 18 you know, looking at the -- looking and trying them in 19 without damaging the model, just trying the -- the 20 different devices in. I believe there was a -- if memory 21 serves me correct -- there was a cleaver, a hunting 22 knife, and another knife that were possible -- possibly 23 used in this -- in this case. 24 And I -- so it was my understanding that I 25 was just going to make the model and, of course, it

1 cascaded and ended up having to testify as to which one 2 could have made which mark and which one couldn't, and so 3 that was my involvement in that case. 4 So you couldn't do a CT Scan, you had to 5 just basically use, you know -- mac -- you can use CT 6 scans in fine weapons, they're -- but you have to use 7 microcomputed CT scans, and the only case I'm aware of -- 8 the only place I'm aware of, there's some ability at Sick 9 Children's Hospital to do it on a -- on a experimental 10 level. 11 But there's only -- there's one (1) paper 12 that was published out of Switzerland where they did do 13 stab wounds into fresh bone with fine implements and then 14 microcomputed CT scans, but they're -- they're desktop 15 things that are research tools. They're not something 16 that -- we certainly don't have one, I don't think, at -- 17 at University Health Network. 18 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. Now, I want to 19 ask you a little bit about the -- the Court process and 20 your involvement in it. 21 First of all, do you ever have occasion to 22 provide expert opinions that -- that oppose those of a -- 23 of a colleague? 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes, I did. I did for 25 your firm, actually. I test -- I wrote a report advers -

1 - in an adversarial position to Dr. Hans Sepp, a man who 2 I have tremendous respect for, but I thought he was wrong 3 in that case. 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And -- and 5 I know that you've got some views on the adversarial 6 process in -- in Court, so this is an opportunity. Why 7 don't you communicate to -- to the Commissioner how you 8 feel about the adversarial process, because from there I 9 -- I hope to ask you, either now or a little bit later 10 on, about some recommendations that might be directed to 11 that issue. 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: The adversarial process 13 from the standpoint of the expert doesn't allow enough 14 free room to express all my opinions. I -- I find it 15 very unpleasant. 16 I've heard some people that don't like to 17 testify for the defence; I actually prefer to testify for 18 the defence. I find that the Crown attorneys, with 19 apologies to the Crown attorneys, do not treat experts 20 such as myself with -- with any kind of -- of degree of 21 respect, with respect of my time. 22 We'll frequently get subpoenaed, we'll 23 have to go and show up or we come and show up and we're 24 not put on. When we do get on, we might start with a 25 voir dire where Mr. Sandler might stand up and say what a

1 wonderful person I am, here's my CV, and read through all 2 this, and then the other person stands up and -- and 3 heaps abuse on you, and then you go through the procedure 4 again in front of the Judge, and then after that you 5 testify. 6 And I -- I like to think I'm an en -- an 7 engaging and entertaining speaker and I'd look at the 8 jury and half the time they don't understand or they're 9 not physically present or mentally present. 10 And then -- and then at the end of it I'm 11 not allowed -- I'm often not allowed to say things that I 12 think should be said. I'm not allowed to -- I'm only 13 allowed, from what I can see, to answer questions. I'm 14 not allowed to say, Oh, by the way, did anybody thing 15 that maybe we should talk about this? And that's come up 16 in a number of cases, and it -- and one (1) -- one (1) 17 case in particular it came up with, which was a case that 18 it was a second degree murder charge. 19 Do you want me just to -- 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: Sure. 21 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Sure. 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It was a case where I - 23 - I had -- I was asked to do a -- a bite mark analysis. 24 It was the best human bite mark I've ever seen. It was 25 on the inside arm of a deceased male.

1 It was my understanding that the man and 2 the woman, they're married to each other, had been 3 fighting, and the woman had -- this is what I understand, 4 had put a knife between the man's ribs and he had -- 5 she'd nicked the covering of the heart, and he bled into 6 that, and he died. 7 But what I saw in the bite mark, by the 8 position of the mark, where the teeth were -- she was a - 9 - a wonderful match, the best -- as I say, it's the best 10 case I ever -- I've seen, but I -- I could tell that by 11 the position of where her teeth were, that his arm was 12 bent -- the deceased arm was bent and her teeth were in 13 such a position that his arm had to be covering her mouth 14 and her nose, which means that she was probably unable to 15 breath. 16 Now when you're unable to breathe, you -- 17 you obviously are -- thrash out and whatnot, and -- it 18 also means that she's -- she's unable to breathe, she's 19 panicking. 20 So I knew this, I told the Crown this 21 before, and I -- I was -- Mr. Commissioner, I was 22 literally praying that someone would call me. I knew of 23 no mechanism where I -- after I told the Crown, I knew 24 of no mechanism where I could call or I could talk to the 25 defence or the defence could contact me so that we could

1 get this out. And I was -- I was literally praying that 2 in court -- it was Mr. Lockyer who was the defence, that 3 they -- he would ask me the right questions, that this 4 would come out. 5 And fortunately he did ask the right 6 questions and it -- and the woman was acquitted. I don't 7 know the rest of the case, because we don't know the rest 8 of most cases. 9 But I knew of no mechanism where I could - 10 - I could say, you know, This is what went on, this is 11 the scenario that I saw, this is the way the jaw is 12 positioned, this is -- no matter at the end of the day, 13 she can't breathe. 14 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Do you do 15 written reports in most of the cases where you're called 16 to give evidence? 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I do written reports in 18 -- in every case that I'm called to give evidence. And 19 in that case, you know, you say where the anatomic land 20 marks, you say that the man was alive when the bite mark 21 was made; I can say that, because there was fresh 22 hemorrhage in the sub-continuous tissue. 23 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: So I knew that it 25 wasn't done afterwards. I knew --

1 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: It was a 2 pre-mortem bite. 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah, it was a pre- 4 mortem bite. And -- and this was very troubling to me, 5 so even though -- and I was asked just to attribute the 6 bite mark to the biter. That's what I was asked to do, 7 which I did. 8 It was a -- it was the best case I've ever 9 seen. 10 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: And yet there was no 12 mechanism that -- that allowed me to go -- I mean I can't 13 stand up at the end of the day and say, Excuse me, Your 14 Honour, there's just a few other -- 15 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: There's 16 something else I'd like to say. 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- I'd -- I'd just like 18 to get this off my chest. And -- and it was -- it was 19 very troubling to me, and because the -- the incident 20 happened well before the trial, those months were terr -- 21 they were terrible. I was asking my friend, Barry 22 Blenkinsop, What do I do? I mean is -- you know, what -- 23 what do I -- what do I do? Do I -- you know, can someone 24 call him -- you know, to call the defence? I have no 25 mech -- there was no mechanism. And that was -- that was

1 a terrible experience. 2 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 5 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Have you 6 seen an instance, and I ask this knowing what you've had 7 to say about this, where -- where you felt that experts 8 on opposing sides views were -- were addressed in a less 9 adversarial way? 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I've seen actually two 11 (2). One (1) is a current case I'm involved in, the West 12 Memphis Three, in Arkansas, where I'm -- it's a post- 13 death penalty case. 14 But the first one I had was a -- and I 15 tried to get the name of the judge, Your Honour. I 16 phoned Mr. Skarica who is the Crown attorney. It was a 17 family custody dispute with an allegation of biting where 18 I appeared for the defence. 19 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: A Canadian 20 case? 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: A Cana -- it was a 22 Hamilton, Ontario case. 23 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: And it was a -- 25 actually the case was Regina -- Regina v. Linger, L-I-N-

1 G-E-R, was the criminal case. But at the family custody 2 case, it was in the evening, and the judge -- we all came 3 in, there was the Children's Aid lawyer, the defence 4 lawyer, the -- Mr. Skarica was there, he was sitting in 5 the back and -- and he was the Crown attorney. And there 6 was a custody -- there was a -- there was a -- there was 7 a lot of lawyers. 8 And there was an opposing expert who -- 9 who -- from Hamilton, who took the view that this man had 10 bitten the gen -- the genital area of his daughter, and 11 that this bite mark was produced at a certain point in 12 time, and he had -- he had a scenario, and I thought it 13 was diaper rash. 14 And we got up -- everybody gets there. 15 The judge -- it was in the evening. The judge had got up 16 and the first thing she did was told the families to -- 17 that they could leave, and she would call them back in 18 when she was ready for them. 19 And then she -- she instructed the lawyers 20 to -- that she was going to listen to the experts, and 21 that they would -- it would be best if they didn't say 22 anything, and -- and she asked them to please be seated, 23 and to not to -- not to speak. And then she said, Okay, 24 Dr. -- Dr. Stechey, you can stand up and -- and give your 25 scenario of the case.

1 And he gave his scenario of the case, and 2 then I -- then she asked me, and I said, I don't -- I 3 cannot agree with my colleague, because of this and this 4 and this. 5 And this was a protracted period of time-- 6 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: Right. 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- and then she -- she 8 said to us, Well, lets go back to chambers. We went back 9 to chambers, and she said, We're looking for areas of 10 common agreement, and I said -- 11 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: "We" being 12 the two (2) of you and the judge? 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah -- yes. The two 14 (2) of us. No other -- just the two (2) experts. We 15 went back to chambers, and she said, Are there any areas 16 in which you can agree? 17 And I -- I said that, you know, Your 18 Honour, with respect to my colleague, he didn't get all 19 of the information that he should have had. He -- he 20 didn't -- wasn't given it. 21 The photographs that he should have had 22 which showed that the -- the bite mark that matched 23 actually grew bigger while the child was taken away from 24 the -- the father. 25 It actually grew bigger to the point where

1 it matched when he saw it, but bite marks don't grow over 2 time. And -- and I -- and she -- and the particular 3 expert, he was -- he was convinced in his -- in his 4 scenario, which is fine. 5 And so we -- we went back and she said, 6 Okay. We're going to get a, if you like, a tiebreaker. 7 Who -- can you recommend someone, and -- and after two 8 (2) or three (3) people that we -- we went through, and 9 even the expert and I -- other expert and I disagreed on 10 who would be the third person, but ultimately we settled 11 on Richard Souviron from Florida, who I worked with -- am 12 now working with on the Arkansas case. 13 And they sent the case to him, and he -- 14 he happened to side with me, and say that it was diaper 15 rash. And all I was thinking was, who's a man who's old 16 enough, and who probably has children, who's changed 17 diapers. And that -- that -- I was thinking, from my 18 standpoint of that, that's the person I want to get, and 19 he's a very well respected forensic dentist in the United 20 States. 21 And so that's who we went with. And it 22 was a tie -- if you like, a tie breaker. The Arkansas 23 case, Michael Baden, Vince Dimaio, myself, and Dick 24 Souviron met with States Attorneys, and the attorneys in 25 the case of Damian Eckels (phonetic) in -- in Arkansas.

1 Again, the same -- this was just last year 2 -- the same thing. In -- in Little Rock; we go to 3 Little Rock. The State's attorney's there; the State's 4 pathologist is there; and the other -- these are daunting 5 figures. Vince Dimaio and -- and Michael Baden, and 6 myself -- I'm not a daunting figure -- but Dick Souviron. 7 We sat down, and we had a very collegial 8 discussion about -- about what went on, and, again, the - 9 - the defence set the tone in that case. There was no 10 judge present. 11 And said, We're going to stay out of it. 12 We just want you people to sit and chat about what are 13 the -- what are the areas you can agree on, and what are 14 the areas you cannot agree on. 15 And -- and it ended very amicably, and 16 that's an ongoing case that's -- so I don't know where 17 it's going to end up. But it was certainly a -- it was a 18 pleasurable experience to -- it was a -- to me it was 19 amazing. Both those were amazing experiences, the way 20 that -- I thought this is the way it should work. 21 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: There is 22 sort of two (2) dimensions to what I hear from you, Dr. 23 Wood. One (1) is the atmosphere created in the two (2) 24 examples you have given, being a nicer atmosphere in 25 which to participate in the justice system.

1 But, second, implicit in what you say is 2 that it is a better truth-seeking mechanism? 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. It was a -- and a 4 -- a better avenue for freedom of expressing why you 5 think the way you do. 6 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: Okay. 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: For everyone. Even for 8 the -- the Crown experts in those cases. 9 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: Thanks. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. I want to ask 13 you about one (1) other general area -- and I do promise 14 you we will get to the Sharon case but -- and that has to 15 do with oversight that might exist for work of forensic 16 ondontologist here in Ontario. 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 18 MR. MARK SANDLER: Is there oversight of 19 -- of reports that are done by forensic odontologists in 20 the Province? Can you -- 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: There -- there's no -- 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- speak to the 23 Commissioner about that? 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- there's no direct 25 Provincial oversight by our licensing body. Part of what

1 I have -- what we have done as a group of the now vetted 2 forensic odontologists over the years, bearing in mind 3 budgets and the fact that people largely volunteer their 4 time -- in fact, they'd always volunteered their time for 5 these sessions -- is that one (1) of us will go to a -- a 6 conference or presentation or continuing education and 7 come back and tell the rest of the group. 8 We have -- I have, a number of years ago, 9 sent around to the approved forensic dentist what must be 10 in a forensic report, what should be in a forensic 11 report, and also, where you have free rein. So there is 12 that -- I guess I'm the oversight with respect to that, 13 and also a free -- a fee structure. 14 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Do the 15 reports, Dr. Wood, go normally to the investigating 16 coroner or to the forensic pathologic who's involved? 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: The reports normally go 18 to the coroner, but they may to go the coroner via a 19 circuitous route. In other words, if I'm doing a case, 20 like a case on Christmas -- I did a case on Christmas Day 21 this year -- and I go and do an identification and I -- I 22 need to do a verbal report. 23 Then I would -- I would ask them to 24 contact -- often we'll contact the police because we know 25 the police are there, and then it would go that way. So

1 I may actually give the report to a different person, but 2 it's my understanding it always ends up back at the 3 Coroner's Office or -- 4 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: But you 5 were there at the behest of the coroner -- 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's correct. 7 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: -- on 8 Christmas Day, not at the behest of a forensic 9 pathologist doing an autopsy. 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Actually, no, that's 11 not -- well, that's -- it could be either way. The 12 forensic pathol -- if the forensic pathologist calls me, 13 I go. If the coroner asks me to be there, I go. So it's 14 both. 15 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Okay. And 16 is there any -- this is just to follow up on Mr. 17 Sandler's question -- when one (1) of the approved 18 forensic pathologists does a report, you -- 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: You mean a forens -- 20 forensic dentist? 21 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: -- forensic 22 dentist, sorry -- does that come for any kind review to 23 you, either before it's submitted or after? 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No, no. 25 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Is there

1 any reason for that? 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I don't -- I -- I 3 suppose I would have a hard time, if I didn't see the 4 case, trying to evaluate whether they had done a good job 5 or not. I trust the people that we currently have. 6 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Seeing the 7 pictures, and so on, and the photographs. 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. You know, if you 9 -- if you -- if they felt the need, I think they'd call 10 me, but there's no formalised process now. 11 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Okay, 12 thanks. Mr. Sandler...? 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: And -- and the other 16 question arising out of that, and -- and you may know 17 this, but we are discussing these issues in the context 18 particularly of forensic pathology and -- and the 19 possibility of peer review. 20 Just given the limited number of forensic 21 odontologists operating in the Province -- I -- I suspect 22 I know the answer to this -- but if -- if you're doing a 23 report, is there anyone available that could oversee your 24 report; in other words, engage in some peer review of it 25 on a systematic basis?

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I suppose it's -- 2 ultimately it's the forensic pathologist who, you know, 3 if it's a contentious report, I mean, the forensic 4 pathologist should be the one (1) who -- who has 5 oversight -- I'm thinking of the Chief Forensic 6 Pathologist -- but have oversight of all experts, like 7 forensic entomologists, anthropologists, and myself that 8 fall out -- outside the umbrella of the Centre of Foren - 9 - of Forensic Science. 10 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: All right, 11 the skill sets aren't quite the same, though. 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: They're not; they don't 13 have the same skill set. 14 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: I mean, 15 they wouldn't have any formal training in bite mark 16 identification or anything like that. 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. If the 21 Commissioner were of the view that -- that it would be 22 appropriate to have some sort of oversight mechanism that 23 was exercised by -- by a person at -- that has requisite 24 expertise, do you have any suggestions as to how that 25 might take place?

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I'm -- I'm a 2 scientific advisor for the Bureau of Legal Dentistry at 3 the University of British Columbia, and at that place is 4 the only full-time -- geographical full-time forensic 5 odontologist who's also Board Certified, Dr. David Sweet, 6 who's a colleague of mine. And if it's thought that 7 there needs to be peer review, then that would be the 8 logical place to go. That's by -- even for 9 identifications, I suppose. But you have to remember, 10 identifications are not very contentious. 11 There -- there are cases what -- that 12 might be -- or maybe a random peer review of so many 13 cases that -- and which we have, actually. With the 14 American Board. We have to submit so many cases; when we 15 requalify, we have to resubmit cases that we've worked on 16 and show evidence. 17 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: What do you 18 submit as raw material, Dr. Wood? That is, how easy is 19 it to do peer review of a case like this remotely? 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: This case? 21 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Well, any 22 case. That is, can you do it by digital imageries that's 23 communicated as the baseline data from which the report's 24 derived and so on? 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah, I think that an

1 appropriate mechanism would be to -- to -- we -- we'd -- 2 I'd like to go digital at the -- at the Coroner's Office. 3 I scan my films now. Our fellow in Hamilton is digital, 4 and we are going digital -- digital radiography. 5 It would be very simple to submit the -- 6 the digital radiographs and the -- and the forensic 7 report in the case of an identification, or photographs 8 to -- you know, if you just set it out where you had a 9 rota where you just -- you use a -- 10 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: You could 11 easily go to BC for that? 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Absolutely. 13 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Yes. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Well, 17 we'll undoubtedly come back to some of the systemic 18 issues when -- when you speak to the recommendations a 19 little bit later on. 20 But I'm going to ask you some questions if 21 I may now, about the Sharon Case? 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 23 MR. MARK SANDLER: And -- and if I can 24 take you to the overview report, which you'll see is the 25 first document within your document binder and it's

1 PFP144453. And the Commissioner has heard, Dr. Wood, 2 that Sharon died on June the 12th of 1997 -- just to 3 orient you in time -- at the age of seven and a half (7 4 1/2), and that the autopsy was performed by Dr. Smith 5 over two (2) days, completed on June the 15th of 1997. 6 Did you attend the autopsy? 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I did not. 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: Were you asked to 9 attend the autopsy? 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I was not. 11 MR. MARK SANDLER: Were -- would you have 12 attended if asked? 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Absolutely. 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: Do you attend 15 autopsies on various occasions where the cause or manner 16 of death is an issue? 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't know about 18 whether the cause and manner of death is of issue. If I 19 attend the autopsies, and for any purpose at the 20 Coroner's Officer for identification, what have you, 21 whenever I'm asked, either the same day or the next day. 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Now a 23 couple of questions arising out of that. Lets leave 24 aside the identification cases -- 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm.

1 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- because -- because 2 what I hear you saying is that by and large -- and I 3 don't want to over simplify -- but by and large, the 4 identification cases are far less contentious. 5 So, I -- I really would like to focus on 6 the other kinds of case in which forensic odontology 7 might assist during the performance of the autopsy. 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: Would this have been 10 the case, for example, where, in your view, with the 11 benefit of all you know about it now, it would have been 12 of assistance to have you there during the autopsy? 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And, it's 15 probably obvious, but why is that so? 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, you know, there's 17 more to -- to an autopsy than two (2) dimensional images, 18 and you'd lik -- I would have like to have been there for 19 this case to -- to put a pair of gloves on and have a 20 look, in retrospect. 21 And I -- you can't help but think -- you 22 can't ignore what you know now. But I would have liked 23 to have explored those wounds on the arm myself. I would 24 have liked to have asked the pathology assistant to take 25 the flesh off the -- off the -- off of the arm and see if

1 there's anything on the humerus -- the upper arm bone. 2 There's -- you know, to -- to rep -- to 3 reposition the body and see how the -- how the -- the 4 shape of the wounds changed. It would have been very 5 helpful to me to see the -- the wound in the neck, which 6 we'll get to -- to see myself with my -- you know, to 7 actually explore that instead of relying on the -- the 8 scalpel length. 9 And to see -- to entertain any other 10 possibilities. It -- it's just every step away from the 11 first autopsy is using degraded evidence to a certain 12 extent. You know, the best first chance is at the 13 autopsy. 14 And the more -- it's not all about 15 viewing. If -- if you're asked for an opinion on 16 pictures, that's what you render you opinion on. But to 17 -- the tactile element is an important one (1) in 18 forensic pathology, at least for me, to -- to get in 19 there and -- and see. 20 And -- and also to interact with the 21 pathologist, as well, because, you know, he can explain 22 to me what he's thinking at -- at the time, or what he's 23 not thinking or why he's thinking a certain way. 24 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: I get the 25 sense from you, Dr. Wood, that it's more important with

1 putative bite marks than it might be for other elements 2 of forensic medicine? I mean, when you describe moving 3 the arm for example? 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It's -- it's very 5 important. I mean such -- such -- some simple things, 6 like if someone comes in, in a body bag, and their 7 denture is underneath them, they'll have a beautiful bite 8 mark from their denture on their back, but it's obviously 9 not a bite mark. 10 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Mm-hm. 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: But if you're shown a 12 picture of it, you're going to say it's a bite mark -- 13 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Mm-hm. 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- because that's what 15 it looks like. It looks like teeth indentations in 16 flesh. 17 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Mm-hm. 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: But if you know that 19 you were there, and there was a denture in the body bag 20 underneath the patient and they'd been laying on it all 21 night in the Coroner's Office, you're obviously not going 22 to call it a bite mark. 23 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER:

1 MR. MARK SANDLER: One -- one (1) of the 2 issues that's triggered in this case is -- is what are 3 those cases in which the forensic pathologist should be 4 calling in someone like you during the autopsy itself? 5 I think we can identify some obvious cases 6 if -- if the pathologist were advised, and -- and the 7 evidence isn't entirely clear on this, about the presence 8 of a dog, or -- or there might be an allegation of a dog 9 having contributed to the injuries, then -- then that 10 might be an obvious case where you'd be brought in, am I 11 right? 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: If it's recognized as 13 that, yes. 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: That's what I'm 15 saying. 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: If it's recognized as 18 such. If the police raise the issue as something based 19 upon the information in their possession, then, of 20 course, that's a scenario in which you might be brought 21 in. 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: If I'm -- if I'm aware 23 of it. 24 MR. MARK SANDLER: Right. 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: If it goes to police to

1 pathologist to me; yes. 2 MR. MARK SANDLER: And the difficulty in 3 this case -- I'll put it right out there -- is that we've 4 -- we've had a range of opinions already in this case, 5 including Dr. Milroy, a Forensic Pathologist from England 6 who -- 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- said that this was 9 such an obvious case of dog bites that he wouldn't have 10 even called in a forensic odontologist, to -- to an 11 opinion at the other end of the spectrum that said it 12 didn't present that way and that the information that was 13 available didn't raise that suspicion. 14 So, what I'm trying to see is if you have 15 any insights as to how one could define or articulate 16 those circumstances under which a forensic odontologist 17 should be brought into the autopsy. 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I think whenever 19 there -- whenever you're going to -- whenever you 20 entertain the idea that there's a bit mark -- human or 21 canid, or what have you -- then that's a -- that's a 22 place where a forensic dentist should be brought in. 23 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's certainly one 25 (1). If you're going to document injuries using

1 materials -- which was done in this case and has been 2 done in other cases -- the dentists use on a daily basis 3 and have an expertise in using them, such as the -- the 4 cast of the skull in the Jonathan case, then you call the 5 dentist who knows -- who uses his material every day to 6 use this material. 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: You -- you've actually 8 anticipated my -- my next question. You became aware 9 that a cast was taken, of sorts, in the Sharon case. 10 Am I right? 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I -- I became aware 12 much later. 13 MR. MARK SANDLER: Right. And did you 14 ever see the cast that was taken? 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It's actually a mold. 16 A cast is made from a mold, just -- 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- and I'm being picky 19 but it's -- 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: No, no. 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- it's a mold or an 22 impression, if you like, of the back of the -- I 23 understand it to be the back of the skull. And I also 24 remember from the photographs, there's actually some 25 sticking through the skull at some point into the inside

1 of the skull, and that material is -- that material is a 2 dental material that I would use every -- at least every 3 week, sometimes every day. 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: So, apart from whether 5 or not the issue was either raised by the forensic 6 pathologist or by police information that would -- that 7 would invite concern about dog bites, the use of dental 8 material to -- to create a mold might well invite the 9 involvement of a forensic odontologist to get it right, 10 in effect? 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Absolutely. I think 12 it's critical. That material is not a very -- well, it's 13 a reasonably friendly material. It's an extremely 14 accurate material, the material that was used. I know 15 what material it is because it is a shocking orange 16 colour, it's -- it's polyvinyl siloxane Reprosil, and it 17 is -- that particular one is a very low viscosity one. 18 And if you were to take a new bank note 19 and take an impression with that material, you would be 20 able to see the bank note in the impression material. 21 That's how accurate it is. But it does have to be 22 handled in a certain way. 23 MR. MARK SANDLER: Did you ever learn 24 about how the particular mold was taken in this case, and 25 whether it would have met the standards that -- that you

1 would have required had you been there? 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It -- it -- I can tell 3 just -- if the photographs are the truth, I can tell that 4 it was not used appropriately. That material has 5 changed, I think, since 1997. I believe in 1997 it was - 6 - it was a hydrophobic; in its hydrophobic form -- I'm 7 not sure, I'd have to check on that -- which means it's 8 water hating. In other words, when you're going to use 9 it you want to have a dry field. 10 Now it's hydrophilic, which means that 11 it's -- it can be used with wetting agents and it will be 12 okay. But it's low viscosity, so when you pick it up -- 13 and it's something you can't appreciate from photographs 14 -- it is floppy. It has to be backed appropriately. 15 It comes in four (4) viscosities. It 16 comes in low viscosity which is the orange; it comes in 17 medium viscosity which is blue; high -- high viscosity 18 which, I think, is green; and a two (2) paste system 19 which is a -- which is just like a rubber ball. 20 So when you use the low viscosity, it has 21 to be backed so that when you take it off, it -- it 22 doesn't lose its -- its form. In other words, you'll see 23 the details on it, but they will be stretched, it will be 24 just like a piece of paper, instead of having appropriate 25 backing, so that it's -- it's firm.

1 And -- and I think if you're going to use 2 those materials, you should call us or someone like us. 3 In addition to that, it's not designed to be used on dead 4 bodies that are cold. It's designed -- and I've used it 5 on dead bodies that are cold -- it's designed to be used 6 on bodies that are, whatever, ninety-eight point six 7 (98.6), thirty-seven (37) degrees Celsius because it has 8 a setting time. 9 And if you use it on cold bodies, it -- it 10 retards at setting time. So you -- and I believe, I'm 11 not sure, I think I saw somewhere that there were two (2) 12 attempts at doing the mold, and one (1) didn't work. I'm 13 not sure whether I saw that or not, somewhere in the 14 notes. 15 But it -- it should be used in -- in its 16 proper state. In other words, it should -- if it's the 17 dry one, use it dry. If it's wet, it's okay to leave it 18 wet. It should be backed appropriately with appropriate 19 material. And then, ultimately, it has to be cast, 20 because it doesn't keep its shape indefinitely. I's -- 21 it's a particularly good one . Some of the other ones we 22 use, they -- over a period of time, they -- they become 23 altered. 24 But you don't want to look at these months 25 later and realise that, Oh, it's deformed. You want to

1 cast it in stone -- dental -- dental stone, a type 4 2 stone, so that you have a permanent record of what the 3 skull looked like. So the impression, itself, may turn 4 out to be useless. 5 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Two (2) 6 questions arising out of that. In -- in that particular 7 case, in the Sharon case, had the mold been done 8 appropriately and the casting from it been done 9 appropriately, could it have been of benefit in resolving 10 the issue at -- which you knew arose in that case; 11 namely, dog bites or stab wounds? 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, it's hard for me 13 to speculate, but I think that the more information you 14 have, the better. So, I suppose, if you -- if you're 15 missing that piece of information, you're -- you're again 16 dealing with degraded material for your opinion. 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: And the -- the second 18 question I have -- have is that -- is that based upon the 19 material that you read, you had a sense that -- that the 20 molding wasn't done properly, and what caused you to form 21 that opinion? 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, you can see if 23 the photograph shows just orange Reprosil, it isn't 24 backed. It isn't backed, so you're dealing with a floppy 25 material. So you haven't -- you have to see this

1 material to appreciate this, that just when you pick this 2 -- thin layer of this up, it just -- it's like -- it's 3 not like a sheet of paper, it's like a -- it's almost 4 like wax paper. Unless it backed into three (3) 5 dimensional -- 6 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- with three (3) 8 dimensional backing, it -- it's going to lose its form. 9 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: What would 10 you back it with? 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: You back it with 12 another one (1) of its -- you go up the food chain of its 13 -- if its viscosity, so you'd back it up with a -- maybe 14 a medium body, impression material, or you -- you could 15 even back it up with plaster. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 18 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Two (2) 19 other investigative steps that I want to ask you about; 20 do you ever attend the death scene in connection with the 21 kind of issue that's raised here, and -- and do you think 22 that's a valuable exercise? 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't as -- I don't 24 go to death -- to death scenes. Personally, I think it's 25 valuable to go to death scenes, I mean -- in retrospect -

1 - but I mean, this is a big province, and it's not 2 something that I can logistically do in -- with my other 3 job. 4 I think it -- I think this is -- this 5 particular scene is a scene that screams out for the 6 pathologist to be at the death scene. 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. And the other 8 investigative issue that came up here is that Dr. 9 Pollanen testified it would have been helpful had swabs 10 been taken for saliva to see if -- if dog DNA could have 11 been found. And, of course, that assumes that -- that 12 the forensic pathologist has identified that as an issue 13 for -- 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It as -- 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- him at the autopsy. 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It assumes that, and it 17 assumes that at that point in time there were DNA probes 18 for dogs. I'm not -- I'm not so sure there was. I don't 19 know that there wasn't, but I'm not so sure the Centre of 20 Forensic Science has -- had, at that time, the ability to 21 detect dog DNA. 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: And I also read about - 24 - the thing about that -- that they should have swabbed 25 it for bacterial cultures. I think Mr. Rumble raised

1 that, because dogs have different bacteria in their mouth 2 than humans, but that would be practically useless. 3 I mean, if the dog happened to lick the 4 child, you know, DNA is very sensitive. If you get -- 5 you know, I'm sure my DNA is on my wife and vice versa 6 because we -- we share a common place. So, you know, I 7 don't how valuable that would be in determining the -- 8 the wounds were what they were. 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay, fair enough. 10 Now, moving ahead, if I can take you to paragraph 57 of 11 the overview report, and you'll see that that's at page 12 19. 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: 57? 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: Yes. 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Page -- paragraph -- 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: Paragraph 57 at page 17 19. And, again, you'll see the pagination after the 18 slash on the top of the page, so PFP144453/19. 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Oh, okay. 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: Those are the pages 21 that I'll be using. 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: All right. 23 MR. MARK SANDLER: So if you see 24 paragraph 57, it reflects that, according to the notes of 25 Constable Goodfellow, who is one (1) of the officers on

1 this case, on June the 15th, which is the date that the 2 autopsy concluded, Dr. Smith advised him that the cause 3 of death was exsanguination, secondary to multiple stab 4 wounds. 5 And we also see that Detective Sergeant 6 Bird recorded a conversation that he had with Constable 7 Goodfellow that same day at 13:10: 8 "Post-mortem examination conducted on 9 the deceased revealed cause of death to 10 be as a result of exsanguination, 11 excessive blood loss, secondary to 12 multiple stab wounds." 13 He also indicated: 14 "Head lice had been found, multiple 15 stab wounds consistent of numerous 16 slashes and stabs to the head, throat, 17 and right arm areas." 18 Stopping there for a moment. So, if -- if 19 this accurately reflects what -- what had been said by 20 Dr. Smith, the forensic pathologist, at the conclusion of 21 the autopsy; namely, that he had opined that the death 22 was caused as a result of multiple stab wounds, had you 23 contributed to any discussion that had lead to that 24 opinion being formed by Dr. Smith? 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I did not.

1 MR. MARK SANDLER: Were you even aware of 2 the case as of June the 15th? 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Not to my recollection 4 at all. 5 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. And if you move 6 ahead to paragraph 72, and you'll find that at page 33, 7 we see that the police did some investigation regarding a 8 pit bull, named Hat Trick, that -- that apparently was -- 9 was in the basement at least shortly before this child's 10 body was discovered. 11 And there was some evidence about those 12 circumstances, and what people had to say about it. 13 You'll see that in a June 16th statement, a fellow named 14 Mr. Strowbridge believed that Hat Trick had been in the 15 basement on June the 12th, which is the date the child 16 died. 17 He observed the -- the dog acting oddly in 18 the days following Sharon's death, and that Hat Trick bit 19 another person on the night of June the 12th of 1997. 20 And then we see on June the 17th -- and 21 I'll come back to that in another context -- but I just 22 wanted you to alert -- alert you to it. 23 On June the 17th, and this is two (2) days 24 after the autopsy was completed, Constable Goodfellow 25 telephoned Dr. Smith regarding the markings on Sharon's

1 back, and he recorded the conversation as follows: 2 "We have concerns about upper back 3 marks. A: Not domestic or wild animal 4 in any way. X-ray results; no broken 5 bones." 6 And you'll see a similar comment made at 7 page 34, the following page, paragraph 75, that Constable 8 Goodfellow reports the conversation to Detective Sergeant 9 Bird on that same day. Bird noted that Constable 10 Goodfellow spoke to Dr. Smith, who said the injuries to 11 Sharon were definitely not caused by domestic or wild 12 animal, and then the note, "She had no broken bones." 13 So again stopping there for a moment; if 14 this note is accurate, and that Dr. Smith had formed the 15 opinion as of June the 17th of 1997, that the injuries to 16 Sharon were definitely not caused by domestic or wild 17 animals, had you contributed at all to any discussion, or 18 -- or input that resulted in that opinion being formed? 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No, I had not. 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: Do you remember how it 21 was that you first became involved in this case? 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I -- I don't remember 23 the -- I remember -- I remember Dr. -- sorry, Constable 24 Barrett -- Chris Barrett, I believe his name is, the 25 Kingston Police -- was dir -- I -- everything goes

1 through -- at that point, went through Mr. Blenkinsop. 2 So the -- the police would call and say -- or the defence 3 would call and say, We need someone to do a bite mark, or 4 what have you. 5 And then they would be directed -- since 6 I'm not geographically on site at the Coroner's Office, 7 they'd be directed to the hospital where they would bring 8 whatever they have, and I would -- and I would comment on 9 it. 10 So, Constable Barrett showed up with some 11 photographs. And I -- I think long after the autopsy, 12 and then I subsequently issued a report. And it's my 13 custom to -- sorry -- it's my custom to issue reports -- 14 we're all in the service industry, and it's my custom to 15 issue reports within one (1) to two (2) weeks. 16 And two (2) weeks would be at the outside, 17 if I'm asked for a report. The report comes within a 18 week. So I understand it to be -- to be prior to my 19 February report -- 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. So the -- 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- was the first 22 involvement. 23 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. So that 24 your report, as I recall, is dated February the 28th of 25 1998, which is -- which is quite a lengthy time after the

1 post-mortem examination takes place. 2 And what I take from your evidence is that 3 if your report is dated February of 1998, you would have 4 received the first request to provide that report within 5 one (1) to two (2) weeks prior to that. 6 Do I have your evidence correct? 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's -- that's what I 8 understand, but I -- I have no recollection of the 9 precise dates of when Constable Barrett came. 10 MR. MARK SANDLER: Fair enough. And -- 11 and if I can take you to page 28 of the overview report. 12 This is a reproduction of portions of the 13 testimony that Dr. Smith gave at the preliminary inquiry, 14 and I'm just going to read them to you, and ask you to 15 comment upon them if you may. As reflected at paragraph 16 64: 17 "Dr. Smith testified at the preliminary 18 inquiry that in the days that followed 19 the autopsy he asked Dr. Robert Wood, 20 Chief Forensic Dentist at the OCCO to 21 review the materials." 22 He says, and this is the first answer: 23 "I sought the assistance of [and he's 24 referring to a forensic odontologist in 25 this case].

1 Okay. And in fact before releasing 2 your autopsy report, you had Dr. Wood 3 prepare a forensic odontology report, 4 correct? 5 A: No, I didn't have him prepare. I 6 asked that he look at the relevant 7 materials. I believe a report was 8 prepared by him. I've never seen that 9 report. If he found evidence of animal 10 interference, then that's an 11 observation which I did not make, but I 12 have not seen a report that Dr. Wood 13 prepared. 14 Q: Well you just indicated that you 15 had a forensic odontologist prepare a 16 report in this case. 17 I asked Dr. Wood to examine the 18 material, I didn't ask him to prepare a 19 report. 20 Q: When did you ask Dr. Wood to 21 prepare a report based on the material? 22 A: I never asked Dr. Wood to prepare a 23 report. I asked that Dr. Wood review 24 the material. 25 Q: All right. When did you ask him to

1 review the material? 2 A: About the time -- it wasn't on that 3 weekend. I believe it was in the days 4 following that -- that he examined the 5 materials. 6 Q: When was that? 7 I don't know, I wasn't present when he 8 did such an examination. 9 Q: Well you just referred to a 10 timeframe there. 11 I said, I believe it was in the days 12 that followed, but I wasn't there. 13 Followed? 14 My autopsy. 15 Your autopsy? 16 That's right. 17 And you asked for his input basically, 18 didn't you? 19 That's right. 20 All right. And that was within a 21 couple of weeks of June 15th, correct? 22 A: Well I believe so, but I don't know 23 when he was there. 24 Not specifically, but I suggest you had 25 some concern and you wanted to make

1 sure that these wounds weren't caused 2 by some kind of animal, correct? 3 A: Well that's not exactly a fair 4 statement of my decision making at the 5 time. 6 Q: Well, you give me the processes you 7 had in mind to ask for his input then. 8 All right. The issue as to -- there 9 are really two (2) issues here that 10 came along. One (1) was, are there any 11 bite marks on the body, human or 12 animal. The second is that are there 13 any special techniques which Dr. Wood 14 uses, because Dr. Wood does assist the 15 Office of the Chief Coroner in wound 16 interpretation or woundage 17 interpretation. Are there any 18 observations that he may make using his 19 special expertise that could assist the 20 investigators of this? And so those 21 were really the questions that were 22 left to him. Number 1, dog bites. 23 Number 2, is there anything else that 24 would assist in wound interpretation? 25 Q: And that was on your mind, correct?

1 A: That was why I was happy for him to 2 review the materials, yes. 3 Q: Well did you speak to him yourself? 4 A: No. No. 5 Q: Who did you get in touch with him - 6 - who did you have get in touch with 7 him, your staff? 8 A: I don't know if it was the coroner 9 or the Chief Coroner or who it was. It 10 was, I believe, out of the Office of 11 the Chief Coroner. 12 Q: Did you pass along your concerns as 13 well, that perhaps you weren't sure as 14 to the origin of the wounds? 15 A: No, I felt quite certain about the 16 origin of the wounds, but I just wanted 17 a second opinion. 18 Q: To make sure, right? 19 A: That's right. 20 Q: You felt enough doubt that you 21 wanted another -- another opinion, 22 correct? 23 A: No, I didn't feel any doubt. 24 However the problem of a dog was 25 presented to me. I didn't believe

1 there was dog interference here, but 2 because it was -- there'd been a dog in 3 the house -- home, then the answer is 4 it's not a dog, it's not the pattern of 5 the marking of dentation, it's not the 6 tearing pattern that one would expect 7 with a dog or coyote or wolf. I don't 8 believe it's there, however, I was well 9 aware of the expertise of Dr. Wood, and 10 so I was happy for him to look at the 11 material." 12 And we also see at paragraph 65, that you 13 later did provide the written report to the Kingston 14 police, and it was February the 22nd, as I've indicated 15 to you, of 1998. And a memorandum was done from the 16 assistant Crown attorney, Jennifer Ferguson, to the lead 17 Crown on the case at that time, Mr. McKenna, dated 18 December the 10th, 1997, that: 19 "Dr. Wood was retained at the 20 suggestion of the Kingston Crown 21 Attorney's Office after consultation 22 with Dr. Bechard, Regional Corner for 23 the east region." 24 You can see the documents leave some 25 questions about how it was that you were brought into the

1 case, so can you give us your best information as to how 2 that took place. 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: My -- my best 4 information is that I -- I came on much later and was not 5 at -- I was -- I never examined the child at any point. 6 I never saw this child and my best recollection is that I 7 -- I never spoke to Charles about the case -- Dr. Smith 8 about the case and I wasn't asked to go and look at the 9 body. 10 MR. MARK SANDLER: You didn't speak to 11 him at that point in time? 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah, that point in 13 time. I didn't -- I didn't come on until much later, but 14 -- and I would think later on like Decemberish or even 15 after to look at the -- I was asked to look at 16 photographs. 17 But I have -- I have no recollection of -- 18 of this -- of -- I have a recollection I have never seen 19 the child, and I also have no idea as to the exact 20 precise date, but it was much, much after the aut -- 21 much, much later than the autopsy. 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Well. let 23 me just ask you systemically. Leave aside the issue as 24 to the role, if any, that Dr. Smith had in -- in bringing 25 you into the case.

1 If Dr. Smith was involved, or was of the 2 view that -- that you should be engaged, what -- what 3 would you expect the -- the interplay between you and Dr. 4 Smith to be? 5 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I can only say 6 what it is now. And what it -- what it has generally 7 always been is the pathologist calls me and says, We've 8 got X, we want you to come and look at it. Can you come? 9 And the answer is yes. 10 So the path -- usually in the cases where 11 the pathology -- pathologist is concerned about it, the 12 pathologist will -- will summon me over and I'll look at 13 the body. Or if it's -- there's no body, they'll -- 14 they'll ask me to come over and look at whatever they 15 have at the coroner's office. 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And lets 17 assume for -- for any variety of reasons, that -- that 18 you can't be brought into the autopsy itself, that -- or 19 that the forensic pathologist decides that it's wise to 20 bring you in after the autopsy has all ready been 21 concluded, and lets also assume, for the purposes of 22 discussions, that the forensic pathologist uses an 23 intermediary to -- to get to you, and -- and have you 24 involved in the case. 25 Would you then expect to have some

1 dialogue with the forensic pathologist as to what 2 happened at the autopsy, what his observations were, what 3 he's looking for? 4 In other words, would you -- would you 5 expect any instruction or guidance or information from 6 the forensic pathologist, himself, if he wants you 7 engaged in the case? 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: You had a very long 9 question, but you had one assumption at the beginning, 10 which was that -- assume I'm not available. 11 MR. MARK SANDLER: Assume that you're not 12 available. 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: But that's not -- that 14 doesn't happen. 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. So -- 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I am available, unless 17 I'm on vacation. And if I'm on vacation, then Dr. Barlow 18 (phonetic) in Hamilton covers for me. 19 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. So lets 20 leave aside that assumption, and lets say that for 21 whatever reason, the forensic pathologist isn't alive to 22 -- to an issue that should cause him to bring you in at 23 the autopsy. 24 So after the autopsy has been completed, 25 he or she recognizes that there'd be some value in having

1 your opinion on the case. And would you expect some 2 dialogue between you and the forensic pathologist, and 3 what would you expect that dialogue, if any, to be? 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: The answer is: Yes, I 5 would expect a dialogue. And the -- and the second part 6 is that what would normally happen is that I would go to 7 the coroner's office, I would meet with the pathologist - 8 - it used to be in the library downstairs -- and they 9 would show what they had, and what they wanted to ask me. 10 And I would say what I -- say my piece. 11 So they would be at -- like a face-to-face interplay 12 between people, as opposed to even a telephone call. So 13 I'm -- I'm geographically only three (3) blocks from the 14 coroner's office, and -- and I -- I can come over at 15 lunch or after hours or on admin time. 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: Were you ever advised 17 of -- in the course of the work up that lead to your 18 report, of any information that Dr. Smith wanted on this 19 case, or any instructions that he had on the case, or any 20 concerns that he had on the case? 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Now I'll 23 just take you to page 47 then -- and I know I'm going 24 back a long time, so I'm trying to the extent possible to 25 give you documents, where possible, to refresh your

1 memory. And if it accomplishes that, fine; and if not, I 2 understand. 3 At page 47 of the overview report, we see 4 that this is a memorandum from Jennifer Ferguson and I 5 eluded to this a little bit earlier. And -- and you'll 6 see under Cause of Death, that: 7 "Rumble [and that was the defence 8 counsel at the time] told me is going 9 to retain his own pathologist to look 10 at the photographs. He thinks the 11 injuries are bite marks. He may try to 12 have Sharon's body exhumed. Will he 13 have to exhume the dog, too, to compare 14 the dental impressions to the injuries? 15 Sergeant Bird feels that Dr. Smith can 16 give the evidence that the injuries 17 were not caused by biting. Dr. Bechard 18 called this morning to tell us he had 19 spoken to Rumble yesterday. He told me 20 about Rumbles theory re: the dog, and 21 advised that Dr. Woods [should be "Dr. 22 Wood] a forensic dentist, could nip 23 that theory in the bud if we wanted a 24 consultation with him. He would 25 examine the photos, indicate which

1 injuries were likely to be bite marks 2 and computerize the images. I told him 3 I would speak to you." 4 Does that assist you at all as to whether 5 or not Dr. Bechard was involved in any dialogue prior to 6 your involvement in -- in this case? 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't recall a 8 conversation with a Dr. Bechard. But it's clear in my 9 mind that the -- the whole dog hypothesis came up as a 10 result of Mr. Rumble, and that -- that was the genesis 11 for me getting involved in the case, was that Mr. Rumble 12 thought they were dog bi -- was a dog attack. 13 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And so 14 that's -- that was your understanding -- 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- as communicated. 17 All right, and do you -- do you know who communicated 18 that to you? Was it the investigating officer or 19 somebody else or can you say? 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I -- I think it was 21 Constable Barrett who -- when he brought the photographs 22 and he asked me dog or not dog. 23 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. And so could 24 you tell the Commissioner, once you were engaged to be 25 involved in the case, what did you do; what were you

1 given, what were you told, what did you do? 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I was given a series of 3 autopsy photographs that are in -- listed in my report 4 and I imagine are available to the Commission, and I was 5 asked to -- like basically are these dog -- dog bite 6 marks or not? That was the -- that was -- sort of the -- 7 presented to me as a yes/no hypothesis; that it's a dog 8 or not dog. 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And the 10 answer at that time was...? 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Not dog. 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. Now, was there 13 any discussion about whether scissors could have caused 14 the markings with you? 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: There wasn't -- you 16 know, there wasn't any formal discussion. I think 17 Constable -- I -- I remember at some point saying to 18 Constable Barrett, I don't buy scissors. I don't know 19 when that was, but I -- I remember -- I remember making a 20 comment and it may have been to Constable Barrett, but I 21 don't buy scissors. 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And why 23 didn't you buy scissors? 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, you remember this 25 child was scalped, and I couldn't see anybody -- no

1 matter what, I couldn't see any person, unless -- if they 2 were conscious, being able to be scalped while someone 3 was incising their scalp; there's just too many nerve 4 endings, it's just too sensitive. 5 Also, I thought -- I -- I took these 6 wounds, by the photographs that were given to me, and 7 especially the one (1) that shows the stylet -- which is 8 the device we use to show a single wound track, like a 9 bullet entry and exit wound -- one (1) stylet going 10 through a through-and-through wound -- I took that to be 11 a through-and-through wound -- so I -- I couldn't see how 12 scissors could -- because scissors, open, will -- will 13 create a totally -- I would think, create a totally 14 different wound path. But that's not my business, I mean 15 I'm -- I'm not a -- I've never stabbed anybody. 16 Well, that's not true; I've never 17 purposely stabbed anybody with scissors, but it's 18 inadvertent. But I -- I don't -- 19 MR. MARK SANDLER: Be careful what you're 20 admitting. 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No, that's okay, the 22 College is watching, I'm sure. So I -- I -- you know, 23 I'm not -- just not qualified on scissors, but just to 24 me, it struck me as like being -- open scissors, 25 especially being like, how do you hold them, I mean --

1 but that's an area of my expertise, so... 2 MR. MARK SANDLER: Fair enough. And if 3 you go to Tab 7 of the materials, PFP055695, this would 4 appear to be the report dated February the 22nd of 1998, 5 which you prepared in the matter. 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: And you've reflected 8 the photographs that you found as particularly useful in 9 the evaluation of the case. Were these all of the photos 10 that you looked at, or did you have occasion to see 11 additional photos from which you selected those of most 12 significance to you? 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't remember 14 whether I -- I didn't see all the photos because I know I 15 didn't see the photograph of the impression material, 16 because I would have said, That's impression material. 17 So I couldn't have seen all of the photographs, but at 18 that point, I took these to be representative photographs 19 of -- 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- of the injuries. 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: I asked you the 23 question because the first paragraph says: 24 "I've examined the post-mortem 25 photographs of -- of Sharon,

1 specifically those which I identified 2 as useful in my evaluation of the case, 3 and these include the following." 4 And did you have some sense as to whether 5 you were offered up all of the photos that had been taken 6 at the post-mortem and that you selected some of them, or 7 that you were only shown some of them as representative, 8 or can you say? 9 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I can't say. 10 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. Now, I'm going 11 to come back to the -- the content of the report, not 12 surprisingly, in a few moments, but -- but what I want to 13 ask you is just about other materials or information that 14 you had access to prior to -- if at all -- prior to this 15 report. 16 We've heard that the -- some evidence 17 about the head of Hat Trick, this pit bull, and that the 18 head was destroyed. 19 And does that accord with what you were 20 told about that? 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah, I was asked 22 whether it would be any benefit to look at the dog, and I 23 said -- Well, like I said, any evidence is good, and so 24 they brought the dog to the -- they brought the dog's 25 body to the Coroner's Office and put it in a drawer.

1 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And did 2 you have occasion at some point to examine the dog's 3 body? 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes, I did. I remember 5 vividly opening the body bag on the dog. 6 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And the 7 head was missing, I take it. 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: And I remember my -- 9 what I was thinking at the time which was "goodie". I 10 could not believe that I had a headless dog to work with. 11 It was a -- it was astonishing to me that -- I just 12 couldn't -- I just couldn't believe and I thought, "a 13 headless dog in a dog-bite case." 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: I guess I don't have 15 to ask the lead -- the follow-up question as to how 16 helpful, in a dog-bite case, is a headless dog? 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, you know, it's 18 not completely useless because, you know, we hear, 19 pitbull, pitbull, pitbull, but this -- I'm a dog owner 20 and I have also had the pleasure of being bitten by dogs 21 on four (4) occasions, and -- and it was not a big dog, 22 you know, I saw -- I did the necropsies with Mr. 23 Blenkinsop on the wolves and I did an examination on a 24 bull mastiff later, that was a very large dog that had 25 bit a child or -- in the neck and killed it, and I also

1 examined the dogs that killed the man, and those dogs 2 were very large dogs. 3 This dog didn't strike me as a very large 4 dog and I think Dr. Pollanen has done a necropsy, that's 5 what we call an autopsy on an animal, Mr. Commissioner, 6 on the dog. I don't think that he recorded the weight. 7 I'm not certain whether he recorded the weight or not. 8 So I -- it isn't completely useless. I 9 mean, if it had occupied the whole of the -- of the tray 10 of the human would sit on, obviously you'd think much 11 different than if someone showed up with a dog that 12 weighed fifteen (15) pounds. So it wasn't completely 13 useless but it was virtually completely useless. 14 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: For your 15 purposes -- 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: For my purposes. 17 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: -- you were 18 interested in the teeth. 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I was interested in the 20 teeth. 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 23 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. And if we go to 24 your report we -- we see that four (4) paragraphs down on 25 the first page that:

1 "The marks found on the photographs 2 listed above are completely 3 inconsistent with dog bite marks, be 4 they either domestic or wild. I base 5 this conclusion on the following 6 findings..." 7 And then you set out the basis that -- 8 that you rely upon in support of that conclusion. And 9 one (1) of them -- and I'm going to come back to ask you 10 about it -- is on the -- on the next page, page 2, it 11 says: 12 "The dog bites I have seen..." 13 If you see where I am, about three (3) 14 paragraphs down. 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: 17 "The dog bites I have seen and I 18 suspect most dog bites generally occur 19 on the limbs, while these are directed 20 at the head and neck and shoulder 21 girdle. I've seen dogs remove large 22 chunks of flesh but not with the same 23 linear incisions seen in the removal of 24 the scalp. In summary I can say 25 without equivocation that the markings

1 seen on the deceased are not dog bite 2 marks." 3 Now, just stopping there for a moment and 4 perhaps we'll just get right to the -- the heart of the 5 issue at once before I proceed through the chronology, 6 there comes a point later in the chronology where your 7 opinion significantly changes on -- 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- this issue. 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes, it does. 11 MR. MARK SANDLER: What changed? 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: What changed? What 13 changed is I saw the arm bone at the second autopsy. 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And could 15 you explain that to the Commissioner? 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, as again, you 17 bring everything to bare, including life experience, when 18 the -- when the humerus was taken out of the body bag and 19 it was examined, I looked at the humerus and these -- 20 these jagged rough, fairly dull indentations in the -- in 21 the bone and I remember vividly saying to myself, "dog." 22 There was no doubt in my mind at that time. 23 When I had looked at the humerus at the 24 second autopsy, bearing in mind that the body of Sharon 25 was largely decomposed, but the bones were a little bit

1 friable, you could certainly see that there were these 2 markings on the arm that were these dull markings that a 3 dog would leave on a bone, and it was just -- it was a 4 very, very simple thing for me to say. 5 And then, of course, I mean hindsight 6 being 20/20, you can't possibly have dog marks on the 7 bone, dog-tooth marks on the bone and flesh wounds that 8 are made by a knife, that's -- or anything else, it's 9 illogical. I mean, why introduce a second condition when 10 one will do. Obviously if there are dog marks on the 11 bone then going back and looking at the fleshy 12 photographs of the arm, it has to be -- it has to be dog 13 teeth that got there to make those markings on the bone. 14 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Did you 15 have photographs of the arm, Dr. Wood? 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I had photographs of 17 the arm of the first autopsy, yes. 18 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Yes. 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: And at the second 20 autopsy I examined the bone. 21 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 24 MR. MARK SANDLER: Well, and the 25 Commissioner's question kind of leads in to a question

1 that I suspect that you know is coming, and that is that 2 -- that kind of looking back and thinking about having 3 observed what was in the photographs of the arm, is there 4 anything that you could have done or thought you should 5 have done differently in order to identify the 6 photographs as indicative of dog bites? 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I'm not sure I follow 8 your question. Are you talking about is there anything I 9 should have done with respect to the first photographs? 10 MR. MARK SANDLER: I'm saying that -- I 11 mean, you've said that you -- that you looked at the 12 humerus after the second autopsy, and as a result it was 13 clear to you that -- that your earlier opinion was wrong 14 in that regard. And we did have other doctors, Dr. 15 Dorian and Dr. Ferris who did look at the photographs and 16 said, This is a dog bite case. 17 How had they been able to do that and you 18 hadn't, I guess is a fair question? 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I guess that's 20 something you're going to have to ask them. That wasn't 21 my take on it. My take on it was that a dog has -- has 22 two (2) canine teeth or -- which are the eye teeth, if 23 you like, and unlike us they have six (6) incisors, and I 24 could not see the marks from the six (6) incisors. 25 There's one (1) picture that shows of five

1 (5) markings, which I thought corresponded to five (5) 2 fingernails. But there was no -- there wasn't a picture 3 where I could reliably see -- and bearing in mind that 4 these are obviously very deep injuries -- where I could 5 see those six (6) front teeth from a -- that I would 6 expect to see in a dog. 7 There was -- there was certainly -- you 8 could argue -- now it's very hard to go back and look at 9 the flesh pictures now that I know what's on the bone. 10 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: But if I just sort of 12 pretend that it didn't occur, that -- then where are the 13 marks from the little teeth. I don't understand that. I 14 don't -- I did not understand that -- why there are some 15 breeds that don't have -- they have a -- less teeth than 16 other breeds, but pitbull isn't one of them. And I don't 17 understand where the little teeth -- if he's -- if it's 18 gone that far in, where are the six (6) markings from the 19 little teeth? And I couldn't appreciate them. 20 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: I mean 21 clearly for you, Dr. Wood, the significant difference was 22 the better information base you had later on? 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Absolutely, Mr. 24 Commissioner. Absolutely. 25

1 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 2 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And I'm 3 going to take you a little bit later to Dr. Ferris' 4 opinion, but I want to ask you a -- a systemic question 5 right now and again, without the benefit of the whole 6 chronology and -- and lead in. 7 The Commissioner has heard the wide range 8 of opinions that have been expressed in connection with 9 this issue, in a criminal case. He's heard Dr. Milroy 10 who came here and said, It's an obvious dog bite case, 11 and said all of the injuries are attributable to dog 12 bites, and this is what we see, and it -- and it sure 13 isn't a stab wound case, and I never would have even 14 thought of it as a stab wound case. 15 We have Dr. Pollanen who came, who said, 16 You know, it's a dog bite case, all of the injuries are 17 attributable to -- to dog bites. Though he could see how 18 someone might be distracted by -- by the scalping and 19 take -- take this thing in another direction. 20 We have at the other end of the spectrum, 21 Dr. Smith's opinion that was expressed that this is 22 clearly a case involving stab wounds and clearly a case 23 that did not involve dog bites, initially. 24 We have your initial opinion; it's 25 unequivocally not a case of dog bites. And then we have

1 opinions that have been expressed as the chronology -- as 2 the chronology proceeds, from Dr. Ferris and Dr. Dorian 3 said, Obvious it's a dog bite case. 4 And then you've got Dr. Chiasson who said, 5 There are a number of injuries here that are dog bites, 6 but I can't exclude the use of a weapon in relation to 7 some of them. 8 You've got Dr. -- your later report as 9 well as Dr. Smith's later report that acknowledged that, 10 Yes, a number of these injuries are consistent with or 11 indeed are representative of dog bites, but there are 12 some marks that can't be attributed to dog bites that -- 13 that you see as injuries. 14 So you've got this spectrum of opinions 15 that -- that appear to exist and of course the challenge 16 is, how does the criminal justice system wrestle with 17 that divergence of views? 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I wish I could 19 help you there. I don't know how you're going to wrestle 20 with that. But I think you have to just understand that 21 -- we understand, most of us, that reasonable people can 22 have -- take reasonable -- look at the same material and 23 come up with different -- different hypothesis as to how 24 it occur -- how the marks occurred. 25 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: One (1) of

1 the things, Dr. Wood, that we've heard a good deal about 2 and I've asked some questions about, is the way in which 3 reports articulate the level of certainty with which the 4 conclusion is held? 5 And your report is, for me, very well done 6 in the sense that you absolutely clearly outline the 7 reasons that take you from the facts you observed and the 8 photographs to your conclusion. That is not something we 9 have seen in all the reports that have been presented 10 here. 11 The deficiency was the information-base 12 you had. 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 14 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: And I guess 15 what I am saying is, is there any -- this is partly a 16 challenge to the scientists; it is partly a challenge for 17 the system, to make clear -- you, perhaps, did not even 18 know -- well, you did know that you had not seen the 19 bone, but I suppose at that point, you had no way of 20 knowing that the bone would be an important piece of 21 information for you? 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I had no idea that the 23 -- the bone would -- it wouldn't hurt if they'd kept the 24 bone as a sample, but it's a problem. 25 I mean, reasonable people can disagree. I

1 tend to, sort of, stay along -- stay with Dr. Chiasson's 2 opinion, even -- you know, even today that -- but I -- I 3 don't how to -- I don't know how to offer help. 4 I think as far as what you're saying about 5 degree -- 6 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: Well, I 7 guess what I am suggesting is, with hindsight, you would 8 now rework your first opinion; if you can put blinkers 9 on, to say, Keep in mind that I have not seen anything 10 more than the photographs. 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. And -- and we 12 are actually dealing with, at the Coroner's Office, with 13 respect to the degree of certainty about reports, and we 14 are -- in February, when we have our -- we have an annual 15 meeting with the Chief Coroner. 16 This -- this meeting is about unidentified 17 remains in the -- in -- in dealing with the United States 18 and Canada jurisdiction, but it's also about advice on 19 giving testimony and preparing reports with respect to, 20 sort of, the Kaufman type "couching your statements in an 21 appropriate fashion" or your degree of certainty. 22 Bearing in mind now that I'm older and 23 greyer, and also have -- which I've earned -- and also 24 have a lot more experience, I might not have used -- 25 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: Yeah. This

1 is a learning exercise for everybody. 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. But this is 3 something that we have to deal with syst -- systemically. 4 And we are, as forensic dentists. 5 We are getting together -- I believe it's 6 actually Dr. Pollanen who's going to -- who's going to 7 give us a seminar on when you write a report; what -- you 8 know, what's appropriate in the way of degrees of 9 certainty. It's a learning process. 10 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: 11 Disentangling, a little bit, issues of, what I might 12 call, language that is prone to ambiguity -- 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 14 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: -- such as 15 quote "consistent with" that might be -- 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 17 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: -- meant 18 differently by the author than it would be understood by 19 the listener. 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 21 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: There is 22 another dimension, which is the dimension you and I have 23 just chatted about, that is if reports are completely 24 fulsome, would it be better for them to recognize the 25 information-base, and therefore the lack of potential

1 information that is available from which to derive the 2 conclusion? 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. I think every 4 report should state what it's -- what the opinion is 5 based on which I did in my report. 6 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: Right. 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: But I don't know how I 8 would express what the infor -- what the report is not -- 9 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: Yeah, that 10 is -- 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- not based on. 12 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: -- I know, 13 but that is a challenge. 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes, it is. 15 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: That is a 16 challenge, because with hindsight, that turns out to be, 17 from your perspective, the absolutely critical missing 18 fact. 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Exactly. 20 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: And, so the 21 report that seems so persuasive, and frankly, so certain 22 when -- 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 24 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: -- you draft 25 it, turns out to be, because it misses a fact, something

1 that you subsequently change. 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: And I guess 4 my -- the challenge I will have to wrestle with, but so 5 will the scientists, is how to cope with that in drafting 6 the initial report. 7 That is, how to be clear about what other 8 pieces of information might have been useful that you do 9 not have. 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: If -- if we could 11 anticipate -- 12 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: If you could 13 anticipate that. 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: Fair enough. 16 That is a fair comment. Thanks, Mr. Sandler. 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: That would be a 18 convenient time, Commissioner, for the morning break? 19 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: Absolutely. 20 We'll arise then for fifteen (15) minutes. 21 22 --- Upon recessing at 11:14 a.m. 23 --- Upon resuming at 11:30 a.m. 24 25 THE REGISTRAR: All rise. Please be

1 seated. 2 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: Mr. 3 Sandler...? 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 6 MR. MARK SANDLER: Thank you. Dr. Wood, 7 we were exploring just before the break how it was that 8 you came to the opinion that you did, and whether with 9 the benefit of some hindsight, we can obtain some 10 explanation for it. 11 And one (1) of the things that you've 12 already told the Commissioner is that you didn't have the 13 benefit of material that you later had post-exhumation, 14 namely the -- the humourous bone, but I want to follow up 15 on -- on some other differences that -- that might have 16 existed. 17 First of all, when you expressed your 18 opinion to the police in the case, and I -- I take it, 19 did you express your opinion with a "yes" or "no" 20 verbally first and then follow it with a written report? 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. Did the police 23 communicate to you what other evidence they thought 24 existed in the case? 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: The police asked me if

1 there was anything else I wanted to see, which is -- 2 which is -- sounds like a great question and a great open 3 question, but doesn't work because I don't really know -- 4 like I'd like to see a videotape of the event occurring, 5 ideally, if you really wanted to have the real evidence - 6 - but I didn't know what to ask for. 7 I knew the autopsy was over, so I -- I 8 didn't -- it was sort of a question I couldn't answer. 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: But did they tell you 10 other circumstantial features of the case that -- that 11 they had available to them, whether blood splatter or 12 what had been found in the house and -- and those kinds 13 of things? 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't recall. 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Did they 16 take -- 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I recall they said that 18 there -- there might be a dog, obviously. 19 MR. MARK SANDLER: Did they tell you 20 their theory of the case? 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't think they told 22 me the theory of the case at that time, but I came to 23 know it later on, the head lice issue and the -- and the 24 anger and what not. 25 MR. MARK SANDLER: Because what we see in

1 that memorandum that I read to from Jennifer Ferguson, 2 December the 10th of 1997, is -- it appears that, if it's 3 accurate, that -- that the reason that you were brought 4 into the case was to nip the theory in the bud that was 5 being presented or floated by the defence, namely, that a 6 dog was involved -- 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- contrary to the 9 position of the Crown and the police, did you know that 10 much, that -- 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. Did you know 13 that Dr. Smith had already expressed an opinion that this 14 was a stab wound case? 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't remember. 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: Would it not be usual, 17 just given the -- the timeframe within which you were 18 being asked and the fact that there's a relatively small 19 office, perhaps, at the -- at the Chief Coroner's Office, 20 that that would come to your attention? 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I'm not at the 22 Chief Coroner's Office, so not -- I -- I don't know how 23 that would come to my attention. I mean I'm at the 24 hospital geographically, so... 25 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Did you

100

1 have dealings with Dr. Smith before this case? 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I -- no, not to -- the 3 best of my recollection, I think this might have been the 4 only case. There was certainly less than three (3) cases 5 of the thousand (1,000) cases I've done that deals with 6 Dr. Smith. 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. And did you 8 have dealings with Mr. Blenkinsop before this case? 9 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Very many, yes. Barry 10 and I were very good friends. 11 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And had he 12 communicated what had happened to the -- at the autopsy 13 to you or -- or the views that had been expressed, or do 14 you recall? 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. I don't recall him 16 ever saying what -- what was the -- the theory, certainly 17 not around the time of the autopsy. 18 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. If you'd look 19 at Tab 3 of the materials that you have in front of you. 20 This -- this is a transcript of the evidence of Dr. 21 Milroy, and I referred to this earlier, and it's November 22 the 19th of 2007, at -- at our Inquiry. 23 And if you'd -- if you'd go to page 54 of 24 his testimony, and you'll see at line 8 at page 54 he 25 says:

101

1 "Essentially there are two (2) things 2 that struck me when I looked at the 3 photographs in this case. The first 4 was the distribution of the injuries 5 around the arms and around, 6 particularly, the neck and head. And 7 then secondly, looking at them, one can 8 see that they are relatively irregular 9 puncture marks with a lot of abrasion 10 and bruising associated with them. 11 There are also a series of other extra 12 abrading injuries. And in one (1) area 13 there's the impression of a dog 14 dentition, and so when you look at 15 those, this is a clear case. The other 16 thing is that the scalp has been torn 17 off. I have never seen a scalp torn 18 off in an attack with a weapon in this 19 way, but it does happen with dog 20 attacks." 21 So just stopping there for a moment. He's 22 noted, first of all, the distribution of the injuries 23 around the arms and the neck and head. Did you note the 24 distribution of the injuries in similar fashion? 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I noted where

102

1 they were; I didn't make notations of where they were, 2 but I noted where they were. 3 MR. MARK SANDLER: And the reason I ask 4 is because in your report, it said that: 5 "The dog mark bites I have seen, and I 6 suspect most dog bites generally occur 7 on the limbs, while these are directed 8 at the head, and neck, and shoulder 9 girdle." 10 And I guess the question for you is that - 11 - but -- but didn't the photographs also show a number of 12 injuries to the arms which -- which might turn the case 13 in another direction? 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: To the arm -- to the 15 one (1) arm there was a great deal of injuries. But 16 attack marks on -- as I understood them -- and I reviewed 17 the literature; I reviewed it as part of my preparation 18 for board exams anyway -- is that there were a few things 19 inconsistent with dog bites. 20 One (1) was the size of the scalp removed 21 in the -- and I've read articles in -- in literature 22 talking about scalp and tissue avulsion; that's a large 23 piece of scalp, it's a very large piece of scalp. And I 24 -- I've been at autopsies, I've cut into flesh, live and 25 dead, and it -- I -- I would think it would be very

103

1 difficult for a dog to rip off a piece of scalp. 2 The largest piece of scalp that I could 3 reliably see taken off a child in a dog attack was about 4 the size of a palm, and this is a very large piece of 5 scalp, so that was inconsistent with me -- for -- for me, 6 rather. 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: And just stopping 8 there more a moment. And consistent with what? I mean 9 as -- as you're kind of thinking as a matter of common 10 sense, what -- what other issues arise on the evidence? 11 If -- if not a dog, then what? 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I guess that's 13 the question. If it's a not a dog then how do you get a 14 scalp off someone. Now, the scalp -- the scalp is -- is 15 a -- is a actually fairly freely movable tissue with -- 16 that runs from the occipital area to the frontal area, 17 and it's a muscle, and it's -- it's -- if you tear a 18 muscle at the front, you can peel it back. And you can - 19 - obviously you can do it because that's how they do it 20 in autopsy; they can re -- they can reflect it with a 21 sharp implement. 22 And so once you tear it, if you -- if you 23 were to cut it with an implement or a knife, you could 24 tear it off. I would think that would be easier than a 25 dog who -- who's trying to do it with his teeth. It just

104

1 didn't -- for me at that time, it didn't fit. 2 Now, as far as Dr. Milroy's report, 3 everyone is really, really good at crosswords, if they 4 have a chance to look at the back and look where the 5 letters go. And -- and I mean this is -- this is -- and 6 I'm not -- I'm not -- I don't mean this as criticism of 7 Dr. Milroy and I would like to sit down with Dr. Milroy 8 and have him explain to me some of the things that I 9 still don't understand with this case. 10 I don't know Dr. Milroy personally. I'm 11 sure he's a fine pathologist, but there are some things I 12 still don't get and I -- I'd still like the opportunity 13 to sit down and have him explain and have me say, this is 14 what I saw. And I mean experts are going to disagree on 15 certain points. 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And when 17 he re -- makes reference to the significance of a lot of 18 abrasion and bruising associated with them, he testified 19 that -- that that's something that is typical in a -- in 20 a dog bite case, that -- that you see the abrading kinds 21 of injuries, and -- and does that accord with your 22 understanding of the literature? 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: You know, I don't think 24 there's a large body of literature on fatal attacks on 25 children. There is -- there's some large -- fairly large

105

1 review articles, but, you know, I mean if -- if you were 2 -- if you were in Dr. Smith's position and you said there 3 were eighty (80) stab wounds, you would also expect a 4 large amount of hemorrhage in the -- in the tissue and a 5 lot of abrasions, so I -- I don't that as being something 6 that is inconsistent with stab wounds -- 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: Well, actual -- 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- or an attack. 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: Yeah, because actually 10 the -- Professor Milroy said that very, very typically in 11 stab wound attacks you do not see that large number of 12 abrasions. 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: But that's why the 14 pathologist does the means, manner, and cause of death, 15 not me. 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: Exactly. And -- and 17 then you go to page 62 of his evidence. And I'm noting 18 what Dr. Smith's testimony was at the preliminary 19 inquiry, and -- and we see this at -- where he says, 20 "Doctor" and this is at the top of the -- of the 21 following page where you got both 62 and 63. 22 "So Dr. Smith has opined that the 23 abrasions exist, but he can't explain 24 their significance, can you? 25 DR. MILROY: Yes, they're caused by a

106

1 dog. What is it about the mechanism of 2 a dog bite that would cause one to 3 expect abrasions? 4 Well, the dog's teeth are not as sharp 5 as a stabbing, the normal stabbing 6 weapons, and as they penetrate, they 7 abrade the edge. Furthermore, you've 8 got the dog, if it doesn't manage to 9 penetrate completely, the teeth can 10 scrape the skin and you also have the 11 claws of the dog, as well, to scrape, 12 so those abrasions are fully 13 understandable in the context of a dog 14 attack." 15 Does that make sense to you? 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, it shows me a 17 little bit more of what Dr. -- Professor Milroy is 18 thinking, but I didn't appreciate them to the same degree 19 that he did. 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And then 21 you see near the bottom of page 63 he says at line 13: 22 "Well, the position of them..." 23 I'm sorry, I should put my question first. 24 "Can you explain to the Commissioner 25 why the distribution of injuries that

107

1 you saw here favour dog bite and tell 2 against stab wounds? 3 Yes, well, the position of them is on 4 the arms and the neck. There's an 5 absence of injury to the trunk which is 6 the typical target of somebody who's 7 stabbing somebody. It presents the 8 largest target. That's where you tend 9 to aim, and obviously the more stab 10 wounds you have, the more likely you 11 are to hit the trunk. And there aren't 12 any in this case. However, when you 13 see the injuries, it's fully 14 explainable by the dog clamping onto 15 the upper arms. 16 The other thing that would actually 17 happen in somebody being attacked in 18 this way is that they would resist the 19 attack by trying to grab hold of the 20 weapon so that they will often have 21 defence injuries on their hands and 22 their arms. But of course, if the dog 23 had clamped both set of jaws onto the 24 arm or onto the neck, then they're not 25 able to get hold of, or attempt to get

108

1 hold so they haven't been injured. So 2 that accounts for the relative absence 3 of injuries. And I should say the 4 other striking thing is the absence of 5 injuries to the trunk, where, of 6 course, the dog isn't -- isn't going to 7 bite because of the size of it getting 8 it's jaws on or because he can't get a 9 hold of it. You're going to have to 10 put -- obviously it's going to have to 11 grip both upper and lower sets of jaws 12 so that it can do that across the upper 13 arms and across the neck much more 14 easily than it could grip the trunk." 15 So just stopping there for a moment. He 16 also sees, as an indicator, the -- the absence of 17 significant injury to the trunk, which would be -- which 18 would not be typical for a stab case, but would be more 19 explained in a dog attack. Does that make sense to you? 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Actually, I've heard 21 this before. I'm not an expert on stab wounds. I've 22 heard this as a reason -- one (1) of the reasons why it 23 can't be stab wounds is because there's nothing on the 24 trunk, and this was pointed out to me years ago by Dr. 25 Pollanen who said we don't get stab injuries on the head.

109

1 And when the Jonathan case came around, 2 and he asked me to come over and take impressions of a 3 stab on the head, I said Dr. Pollanen, we don't get stab 4 marks on the head. 5 So they -- and I have a different frame of 6 reference in Professor Milroy. I spent over a year in 7 South Africa at the second largest hospital in -- in 8 Capetown -- in the Southern Hemisphere, actually, in 9 Capetown, and we frequently saw people that were stabbed 10 in the head. 11 In fact, I wrote two (2) papers on it, and 12 they're in my CV. One (1) a lady who was stabbed and the 13 knife broke off inside of her face, and she was unaware 14 of it, and four (4) other separate cases called "Yale 15 Syndrome", which is a name we sort of -- mixture from the 16 bible, of purposeful penetrating injuries to the head. 17 So people do stab people in the head. And 18 I have a dif -- I come at things with a different frame 19 of reference. 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: Right. Well -- and I 21 -- I really wasn't asking about -- that -- that's 22 helpful, but I wasn't really asking about the stab to the 23 head, but just focussing on what he had to say about the 24 trunk. 25 Does it make sense that one would expect

110

1 to see more injuries, and I suspect I'll know the answer 2 to this, if it were a stab wound case to the trunk area, 3 and -- 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: In -- 5 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- and you'd expect to 6 see less if it were a dog attack? 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I -- I -- in equal 8 sized people -- well, first of all, I'm totally 9 unqualified to get -- to answer this question, so it 10 may -- 11 MR. MARK SANDLER: Fair enough. And that 12 kind of goes to -- 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- that kind of goes 15 to my next question, which is there's a value that -- 16 that the forensic odontologist not be expressing these 17 opinions in isolation, and without the benefit of the 18 dialogue with the forensic pathologist. 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Absolutely. I agree. 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. Now if we can 21 go -- I'm not going to take you to all of the features of 22 Dr. Milroy's evidence, but if we can go from there, and 23 continue on in the -- in the chronology. 24 After you had prepared your report, who 25 did you send it to?

111

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I believe I gave the 2 report to the police, but it was my understanding it was 3 going back to the coroner. 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. 5 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It was my understanding 6 in the Coroner's Office that the coroner is the -- the 7 quarterback of all the paperwork and whatnot. 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And I -- 9 and I take it from what you've said, that -- that you did 10 not send a copy to Dr. Smith? 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I assumed that it 12 would go via the Court. Like all reports, they go back 13 to the coroner, and then are distributed to the 14 pathologist. 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. We know 16 that Dr. Smith submitted his post-mortem report on March 17 the 8th of 1998, which was two (2) weeks after your 18 report was submitted. 19 Had you had any discussion, that you can 20 recall, with Dr. Smith prior to the release of his post- 21 mortem report two (2) weeks after yours? 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. Not to the best of 23 my recollection. 24 MR. MARK SANDLER: Had anybody ever told 25 you or represented to you that Dr. Smith was awaiting the

112

1 completion of your report before he'd -- 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. 3 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- prepare his own? 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. 5 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Now if we 6 can go to -- excuse me for a moment. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 MR. MARK SANDLER: What I'm doing as we 11 speak, is eliminating some of the areas that I would ask 12 you in the -- given the exigencies of time. 13 And if you'd go to the overview report 14 again, at page 52. And the Commissioner has -- has 15 heard, as reflected at paragraph 123 of the overview 16 report, that -- that a licensed private investigator for 17 the defence in January of 1998, which is very shortly 18 before your report, swore an affidavit on behalf of Ms. 19 Reynolds' application for leave for a review of her 20 detention order. 21 And -- and I'll simply summarize to say 22 that -- that the affidavit included significant 23 commentary on what you had to say in your odontology 24 report. This was a supplementary affidavit that had been 25 prepared for him.

113

1 And you can see at page 53 that he 2 reflects: 3 "I've carefully reviewed Dr. Wood's 4 brief Crown expert forensic odontology 5 report. I was puzzled and somewhat 6 confused by Dr. Wood's opinion 7 expressed at page 2. The dog bite 8 marks I've seen, and I suspect most dog 9 bites, generally occur on the limbs, 10 while these are directed at the head 11 and neck and shoulder girdle." 12 And then he reflects: 13 "From my own limited life experiences, 14 and from reviewing many well-researched 15 medical articles, journals and 16 pediatric text books, it's been 17 established that dogs often attack and 18 bite the neck areas of children in the 19 five (5) to nine (9) year age 20 grouping." 21 And then he reproduces nineteen (19) 22 different articles that are said to support his position. 23 And I have to say, that the Crown's position, in 24 response, was that he had no expertise to express these 25 views.

114

1 But what I wanted to ask you is, was it 2 brought to your attention that -- that the defence had 3 raised this issue as to the validity of what you had to 4 say in your report? 5 DR. ROBERT WOOD: This -- yes, I was -- I 6 was aware of this. I got a copy of this. 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And 8 insofar as -- as he was challenging, and we see later Dr. 9 Ferris challenges that part of your report that -- that 10 said that most dog bites generally occur on the limbs 11 while these are directed at the head and neck and 12 shoulder girdle, what do you have to say about that? 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well in -- in one (1) 14 of the articles, and I'm not sure whether it's this one 15 (1), says that 2 percent of the people in America are 16 bitten per year by dogs. 17 Now if that's true, then there should -- 18 and -- and it's also true that most of them are bit in 19 the head and the neck -- then there should be a lot of 20 people in the United States of America walking around 21 with scars on their face. 22 It's obvious that most dog bites occur not 23 on the face or the head. And -- and with children, I 24 think -- I believe the typical attack place is actually 25 the face, because a child will lean over and look at the

115

1 dog, and the dog sees that as a challenge. 2 I'm not a dog behaviour expert. And the 3 dog will bite that way as opposed to on the back, and the 4 back of the neck. So I would think it -- any common 5 sensical person with life experience would know that most 6 dogs bite on hands and -- and legs. 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And -- and 8 the arms? 9 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I suppose, I'm -- I 10 suppose, I -- I don't -- you know, these -- if you look 11 at these publications, they're -- you know, they're -- if 12 you look at the dates on the publications, they're 1959, 13 1972. They're -- these are -- anybody with an internet 14 an a Pub Med access account can -- can find anything -- 15 virtually any reference they want with -- in whatever 16 direction they want. 17 In fact, you're free to say what you like. 18 I tell my graduate students, You're free to say what you 19 like in your thesis and find a reference later, because 20 you'll always be able to find one. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Did you 22 see some value, before you completed your report, to -- 23 to determining what the forensic pathology pathologist 24 had found in terms of the description and number of 25 wounds on the body?

116

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I would have liked to 2 have had a copy of the autopsy report before I did my 3 report. 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: Did you ever make a 5 request for that? 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: Because for example, 8 and I -- I think that it makes your point, that Dr. 9 Smith, in his autopsy report, documented at least thirty- 10 two (32) wounds to the right arm, superficial abrasions 11 and contusions to the left arm and -- and so on. 12 And would that information have been 13 important to you? 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It would have been 15 useful to have the autopsy report in its totality. 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: For example, I mean, 17 just dealing with this right arm issue, thirty (30) -- 18 thirty-two (32) wounds to the right arm. 19 Would that have affected, in your mind, 20 kind of looking back, that part of the report where you 21 said that the location of the wounds wasn't typical of 22 what you'd expect for a dog bite case? 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't think it would 24 have been particularly useful in this case because I had 25 photographs of those areas.

117

1 I did notice that -- later on I had 2 photographs, and there was no marks on the hands, and -- 3 and again in contradiction to Professor Milroy, if -- if 4 you say that you have -- you should expect defensive 5 injuries if you have a stab wound, then why would you be 6 any less likely to defend yourself using your hands 7 against a dog? 8 I didn't understand that, and that's 9 something I -- when I -- if I get a chance to meet with 10 Dr. Milroy, I'd like to ask him. If you -- if you're 11 willing -- everybody puts their hands up as defence, 12 whether -- no matter what it is. So if you're doing it 13 for a knife, why wouldn't you do it for a dog? 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: I -- I think -- I 15 don't want -- I don't want to speak for Professor Milroy, 16 but I think what you'll find in his evidence, not that 17 you wouldn't want to do it, but that just given the -- 18 the locking of the jaws on -- on the arm -- 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That doesn't happen. 20 The jaws do not lock, obviously because there'd be one 21 (1) set of bite marks, not thirty-two (32). 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: So then -- 24 MR. MARK SANDLER: So then you'll have to 25 have -- then you'll have to have that dialogue with

118

1 Professor Milroy. 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- I would love to. 3 The dog had to let go and -- and clamp on again if 4 there's thirty-two (32) marks. 5 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. Now we know 6 that at some point, Dr. Dorion prepared a very brief 7 report that set out his conclusion that this was a dog 8 attack. 9 And were you made aware of that at some 10 point? 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: And was that before or 13 after you prepared your report? 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: My initial report? 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: Yes. 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I believe it was after. 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And did 18 you make any inquiries as to the basis upon which Dr. 19 Dorion had formed his opinion, or did you know? 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I didn't know. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Was there 22 any discussion within -- within your office, or the 23 Crown's, or -- or police interactions with you, as to the 24 basis upon which Dr. Dorion had formed his opinion? 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I had -- had no idea at

119

1 that point why he formed the opinion that he had. 2 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Was there 3 any dialogue about -- about enabling you to speak to Dr. 4 Dorion to -- to have the kind of dialogue that we 5 discussed earlier, systemically, that would be useful? 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It should be, but it 7 wasn't there. And that -- that's something we do in -- 8 in -- I see everyone else's patients in oncology 9 practice. They're not my patients. They come from other 10 dentists. 11 If I see a dentist, it -- should be made 12 aware of a, perhaps, a mistake, or something that I don't 13 agree that he's done, or maybe something he's missed. I 14 do what's called a friendly call. 15 And a friendly call goes to the dentist 16 from me, with the patient's knowledge that I'm going to 17 speak to him, and in a non-confrontational way say, This 18 is -- maybe you should look at this. 19 And I would have appreciated a friendly 20 call from Dr. Dorion to explain to me why he thought what 21 he did. And it comes back to this adversarial thing. 22 Like we're put in a position, and in fairness to Dr. 23 Dorion, he's put in one (1) position; I'm put in the 24 other; and all of a sudden, it's trench -- feels like 25 trench warfare, and it shouldn't be.

120

1 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. If you go to 2 page 99 of the overview report, Dr. Cairns set out a memo 3 that describes, in part, an attendance that took place in 4 February of 1999 at the American Academy of Forensic 5 Sciences' meeting. 6 And -- and he reflects that -- that it was 7 brought to his attention by Dr. Young, who was also 8 there, that Dr. Ferris, Dr. Dorion, Dr. Michael Baden, 9 and Dr. Lavine were all of the impression that the wounds 10 in the Sharon case had been caused by dog bites, and that 11 there was concern about a possible miscarriage of 12 justice. 13 Now stopping there for a moment. Were you 14 at the February 1999 Academy of Forensic Sciences' 15 meeting? 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: If you tell me what 17 city it was in, I can tell you whether I was. I go to 18 almost all of them. I -- I probably was. In Orlando, I 19 think, and I -- I was in Orlando, because I took my 20 daughter to Disney World. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. And did anyone 22 discuss this issue with you while you were there? 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: They did not. 24 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Up until 25 that point of time, February of 1999, which is about one

121
  1  (1) year after you had filed your report, had you been
  2  made aware, by anyone, of concerns that were being raised
  3  about the theory that -- that this was not a dog bite
  4  case?
  5                 DR. ROBERT WOOD:   I -- I'm not sure of
  6  the exact chronology.  At some point in there, a letter
  7  came from Mr. Rumble and the private investigator.
  8                 I don't know when that occurred, but other
  9  than that -- but from our office, no.
 10                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   Okay.  And Dr. Cairns
 11  reflects, in his memo, that on return from that meeting,
 12  he arranged to have a meeting with Dr. Smith, Dr. Wood,
 13  and Dr. Chiasson, and do you recall a meeting that took
 14  place?
 15                 DR. ROBERT WOOD:   I do recall.
 16                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   And -- and can you say
 17  as to when you recollect it was in the sequence of
 18  events?
 19                 DR. ROBERT WOOD:   Well, it was before the
 20  second autopsy.  And I remember it vividly because I
 21  remember expressing my concerns to Dr. Cairns that I did
 22  not want to be at a meeting with other experts who might
 23  be testifying.  And, you know, as someone who doesn't
 24  know the criminal justice system very well, I said to
 25  him, I feel like we're all meeting and colluding in

122

1 getting our opinions straight and I'm uncomfortable with 2 this. 3 And he said, No, Bob, this is a coroner's 4 investigation and you're compelled to go, and I said -- 5 and he noted my objection. And he did the right thing as 6 far as I'm concerned in calling that meeting that I 7 remember being there. And that's why I remember it. 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. What do 9 you remember about the meeting and its contents, if 10 anything? 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I remember the meeting. 12 We are sitting there and I -- I think basically the 13 meeting was -- it was framed as Dr. Cairns said that 14 there's been an allegation of a miscarriage of justice 15 and that he took it very seriously, and that he went 16 around and canvassed people around the room as to what 17 their thoughts were, and also what else would be required 18 in order to help the process along and make sure there 19 was no miscarriage of justice. 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And do you 21 remember what the -- what the bottom line was at the end 22 of the meeting? 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: The bottom line was 24 that the body should be exhumed and we should have a 25 second autopsy.

123

1 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. How did 2 you feel about that? 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I was very much in 4 favour of that. 5 MR. MARK SANDLER: Was there anything 6 about the case that had -- that caused you to favour the 7 exhumation, or simply the principle that you've 8 articulated to the Commissioner that more information is 9 better than less? 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, obviously, I 11 wanted to look at the arm bone, I wanted to look at the 12 skull, I wanted to look at the marks on the skull that 13 were -- the impression was taken of which was later 14 unavailable, and I think that's enough. 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And did 16 Dr. -- do you recall whether Dr. Smith contributed to 17 that discussion or expressed any views in that regard? 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't recall exactly 19 what he said, but he was there. 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. Well, let's 21 move ahead if we -- if we may, to -- 22 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Can I just 23 ask you one (1) question -- 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Sure. 25 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: -- about

124

1 that, Dr. Wood? It comes back to the same thing you and 2 I chatted about this morning. 3 I take it, at the meeting, it was obvious 4 that there were contrary opinions and am I right to 5 interpret your thought process as follows: There are 6 contrary opinions, let's get more facts and we can get 7 more facts by an exhumation? 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: We -- and we -- 9 probably the only way we could get more facts is by an 10 exhumation. 11 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Yes. So 12 was that what drove you to be very positive about the 13 exhumation? 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's what drove me. 15 And also the fact that I didn't have the opportunity to 16 examine the body the first time -- 17 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- and I had no idea. 19 We've had people exhumed who were actually in pre -- 20 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: But as you 21 said to me before, you did not have the opportunity but 22 then you didn't know what you didn't know. 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. There -- but, I 24 mean, the more -- 25 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: At this

125

1 point you, I suspect, are saying, Well, given that there 2 is a difference of opinion amongst reputable experts 3 let's get the best information and the most complete 4 information we can? 5 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 6 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Is that a 7 fair summation of your -- 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's very fair -- 9 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: -- thought 10 process? 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- very fair. 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And just 15 before we move to the second autopsy itself, this meeting 16 that -- that you've described, do you recall whether Dr. 17 Queen was at that meeting? 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I can't recall 19 actually whether he was at that meeting. I -- he may 20 have been, but I honestly can't recall Martin Queen. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: Do you recall any 22 other meeting that -- that you would have attended that 23 involved Dr. Chiasson and Dr. Smith, yourself and Dr. 24 Queen? Or have you exhausted your memory in that regard? 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, you know, the

126

1 thing is we, you know, we would often, I mean, people 2 often meet about other issues so I may have been at -- 3 but for this specific case, I don't recall any other 4 meetings, any other separate meetings with those 5 principle players. 6 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. This 7 meeting that did take place then and that you do recall 8 that led to the exhumation, had you had any conversations 9 with Dr. Smith about this case before that meeting? 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Not to my -- not to my 11 knowledge. 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. So let's move 13 to the second autopsy. And you'll see at page 101 of the 14 overview report that -- that it has been summarized 15 there, including its participants: Dr. Chiasson 16 conducted it, Dr. Smith, Dr. Wood, Mr. Blenkinsop, 17 Constable Barrett, Detective Sergeant Bird, Mr. Davis, a 18 private investigator retained by the defence, Dr. Ferris, 19 and Dr. Dorion attended. 20 And does that accord with your 21 recollection? 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 23 MR. MARK SANDLER: Could you briefly tell 24 the Commissioner what you do recollect about the second 25 autopsy that was of significance to you?

127

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, the -- the first 2 thing was that it was non-confrontational, as far as it 3 can be, considering the -- the personalities involved. 4 And Dr. Chiasson said, this is my autopsy, I'm running 5 it. If you want to take pictures of anything, if you 6 want samples taken, you're welcome to have it. 7 The ground rules were set up. We all went 8 into the autopsy room and Dr. Chiasson ran the autopsy 9 and we examined what we wanted to examine and them some 10 specimens were again kept later on for photography at a - 11 - at a later date, under a photo-microscope. 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: Was there any 13 discussion as between Dr. Ferris and Dr. Smith at that 14 autopsy that you can recall? 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: None that -- not a 16 conversation that I can recall, no. 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Did Dr. 18 Ferris raise any issues about what had or hadn't been 19 done at the first autopsy? 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: You know, I seem to 21 remember him saying something about, you know, it wasn't 22 anything to do with the bones or the bite marks, it was 23 something about some internal or something that hadn't 24 been examined. And I remember Dr. Smith saying that he 25 thought he had done that; I just remember him saying that

128

1 quietly and to himself. 2 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's it. 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: If you'd go to Tab 13, 5 we -- which is PFP102147, as I understand it, this 6 represents the second report that -- that you prepared in 7 connection with the Sharon case. 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: Am I right as to that? 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 11 MR. MARK SANDLER: And -- and I'm not 12 going to go through the -- the substantive issue, because 13 I think the Commissioner is now well aware of the 14 difference of opinions that have been expressed on this 15 case. And as you say, there may be of some value to -- 16 at some point, even now, everybody getting together and 17 discussing why these differences continued to exist. 18 But I'm interested in some of the language 19 that you use, because that's another systemic issue -- 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- that the 22 Commissioner is -- is wrestling with. And -- and if you 23 look at the summary of findings at page 8, just some of 24 them, we see that -- Item 16. Are you with me? 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes.

129

1 MR. MARK SANDLER: 2 "The marking seen in this photograph is 3 nonlinear and appears to skid along the 4 surface of the skull. This is not 5 inconsistent with a marking made by a 6 dog's tooth." 7 Then the next one says: 8 "This is not inconsistent with a 9 marking made by a dog's tooth." 10 Then the next one says: 11 "They are quite convincing of dog 12 marks." 13 Then the next one is: 14 "This could definitely have been made 15 by a dog canine tooth." 16 The next one: 17 "This hole could have been made by a 18 dog tooth." 19 And -- and so on. And are the -- are the 20 differences in degree of confidence about -- about what 21 was or wasn't made by a dog tooth, or what is consistent 22 or not inconsistent with a dog tooth, were those 23 deliberate, were they graded in some way, or -- 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. 25 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- or help me out as

130

1 to that. 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, in fact, I -- I 3 guess the comment I could make is they're not very 4 kaufmanesque. They're -- they're very -- they're -- you 5 know, the -- you know -- 6 MR. MARK SANDLER: You mean kaufmanesque, 7 not kafkaesque, that's -- 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. The -- the -- 9 yes, they're -- they're obviously -- and there's a 10 systemic issue. Obviously there has to be consistency 11 with terminology, and this one (1) -- part of the reason 12 we're meeting again for an annual meeting in February, is 13 to get some of these issues about how -- how to -- how to 14 report these. 15 And this was prior to my giving the 16 direction of what should be and what must be in a report, 17 which I obviously would have preferred to have given to 18 myself several years prior to when it was issued to 19 everyone else. 20 So, yes, there's -- there's problems here, 21 I -- and I see it; could have, might have, you know, 22 it's -- 23 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Does that 24 reflect a different level of certainty in your head about 25 these various conclusions, Dr. Wood, or is that just use

131

1 of language more or less in the alternative for the same 2 level of certainty? 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: You know, it's -- it -- 4 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Or can you 5 say now? 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I -- I can't say now. 7 But I type all my own reports, so -- and I -- I can type 8 just as fast as I can think, I -- I think, so it's 9 probably exactly what's going on in my mind at the time 10 that I'm typing it out; not inconsistent -- I cannot rule 11 out -- you know, obviously I think it should be -- 12 systemically it should be a much simpler: cannot exclude 13 or can't -- 14 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Well, the 15 criminal justice system may tend to hear it in a way that 16 is slightly different, maybe even significantly 17 different -- 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: -- from the 20 way you may absolutely intend it. 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I understand. 22 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: And that's 23 a communication bridge that we have to build a little 24 better, I think, than -- 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I think --

132

1 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: -- and it 2 has to come from both ends of the divide. 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I think at least 4 from our side, you know, we -- we can easily define that. 5 I mean one can get into attaching a numerical value or 6 what have you to -- 7 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Many of 8 your colleagues are resistant to putting a -- 9 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah, I know. I don't 10 want to, either. 11 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: -- percentage 12 on it. 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No, I don't want to, 14 either, because that's -- I think that you're better to 15 use: exclude and cannot exclude. I think that's -- 16 that's -- 17 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: And you 18 share the reason that's been given to us previously about 19 percentages, that they -- 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: -- tend to 22 be more precise than the conclusion in the head actually 23 warrants. In other words, there's a certain 24 arbitrariness to them? 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes, there's an --

133

1 there is an arbitrariness, and I resist having to put a 2 percentage of, you know, attached to a -- a degree of 3 certainty. I just know, in this case, there were marks 4 in the skull that could not have been produced by a dog 5 tooth. 6 You can't have dull marks in the arm and 7 sharp marks on the head. 8 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Yes. 9 DR. ROBERT WOOD: By -- made by the same 10 implement. I didn't understand that. 11 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Yes. 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: But this is -- your -- 13 this is -- this -- 14 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: It's a 15 conundrum though, Dr. Wood, because you know when you 16 look at the arm bone, you are -- if I can use language 17 that doesn't have a percentage in it, very certain that 18 the mark you see on the bone is caused by a dog? 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah, absolutely. 20 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: And you may 21 not be absolutely 100 percent certain, as I slip into the 22 use of percentages, but there is a great deal of 23 certainty in that opinion? 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Whereas

134

1 some of the opinions you articulate here, appear to be 2 held with less conviction? 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. And because -- 4 the -- another thing to remember, Mr. Commissioner, is 5 that just because it's something -- like, take the holes; 6 just because a dog tooth will fit in the hole, it doesn't 7 mean that it was made by a dog tooth because there are 8 other considerations other than just that little wound 9 weapon interface. 10 There's things such as, Can a small dog, a 11 relatively small dog get purchase on a -- on a chil -- 12 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- back on a child's 14 head with its mouth maximumly opened? Its bite force is 15 the least. So even if it gets its mouth maximumly 16 opened, it can't generate enough force to go through a 17 skull. 18 And in my literature review, -- and I'm 19 not here to defend myself, but I couldn't find a case of 20 someone that old -- or not many -- of someone that is 21 almost eight (8) years old where a skull had been 22 penetrated by a relatively small dog. 23 Bearing in mind that I'm the only one who 24 saw the dog and the pictures, and -- and I just couldn't 25 see that -- how that could occur. So it could have been

135

1 made. And -- and the other issue is getting purchase -- 2 if the dog -- if the dog on the back of a slippery skull 3 covered in blood, would have to have his paw around the 4 child's head such that he could have a way of getting a 5 purchase or a fulcrum on it, so I -- I had to put all 6 this -- you have to integrate all that, or I felt I had 7 to integrate all that. 8 But in going back to this, this is very 9 poorly worded really. 10 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Well, your 11 language is a little different from much language we've 12 seen from that period of time. I mean, this is an issue 13 that I think the system has become increasingly aware of. 14 And it obviously is of significant importance in the work 15 we're trying to do. 16 But I take what you mean, or what you have 17 in your head when you use the phrase "could have been 18 made by" is, I can not eliminate that? 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 20 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: I think 21 it's unlikely, for the reason you've given, but I can not 22 eliminate it? 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 24 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: And I'm not 25 sure that's a whole lot better in terms of level of

136

1 certainty, but it's at least more words. 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Mr. 4 Sandler...? 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. To further 8 confuse the issue, if I can just take you to Dr. 9 Chiasson's report at Tab 14 for a moment, which is 10 PFP011496. 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: And I was intrigued by 13 -- by something that you said earlier, which -- which I - 14 - I took to mean that -- that you're -- you're 15 comfortable with Dr. Chiasson's bottom line, and -- 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I've seen this for the 17 first time right now. 18 MR. MARK SANDLER: Oh, I'm sorry, I 19 thought you'd said earlier -- 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's okay. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- on that -- 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No, with his general -- 23 with his general conclusion I was aware of, but I... 24 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. So if you 25 look at page 3 of it?

137

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 2 MR. MARK SANDLER: He says right at the 3 end: 4 "Based on the findings of this second 5 post-mortem examination, and my review 6 of Dr. Wood's report, it is my opinion 7 that a dog was responsible for at least 8 some of the injuries sustained by the 9 decedent. And too, the possibility 10 that a weapon was also involved in the 11 infliction of the injuries is not 12 excluded by this second post-mortem 13 examination." 14 So if one looks at the language that he's 15 utilized here, he seems to be saying two (2) things. The 16 first is that he seems to be saying, with some confidence 17 or -- or lack of equivocation, that a dog was indeed 18 responsible for some of the injuries. 19 And -- and is that where you're at today? 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: And he also seems to 22 be saying that -- that he's -- he's not excluding the 23 possibility -- and this is how I read it and I could be 24 wrong -- he's not excluding the possibility that a dog 25 was responsible for the balance of the injuries, but he's

138

1 also not excluding the possibility that a weapon was also 2 involved in the infliction of some of the injuries. 3 And -- and what I hear you telling the 4 Commissioner is that you're at a little different place, 5 and that you feel more confident that some of the 6 injuries here can not be explained by -- by a dog attack? 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I -- if you 8 choose to call them injuries, the -- the sharp marks on 9 the skull. But I'm -- I'm -- I can live with this, these 10 conclusions, one (1) and two (2). That's -- that -- I 11 can live with that. I'm not far afield from where Dr. 12 Chiasson is. 13 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. That's helpful. 14 So if I can just move on in the -- in the chronology. 15 So we know the -- the second post-mortem 16 took place, and -- and then following that, I'm going to 17 take you back to the overview report, and I hope I'm not 18 confounding you by my speedy race through the chronology 19 here. 20 And I'm going to take you to page 107, and 21 at paragraph 239, Ms. Ferguson has written a letter to 22 Mr. Napier, who is one (1) of the defence counsel in this 23 case. 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 25 MR. MARK SANDLER: Saying:

139

1 "As you know, Sergeant Bird, Constable 2 Barrett, and I met with Doctors 3 Chiasson and Wood on October 26th, 4 1999. Dr. Chiasson indicated that the 5 x-rays from the first post-mortem are 6 currently missing, although they did 7 not reveal anything worthy of note. 8 He also confirmed he was unable to 9 offer an opinion on issues requiring 10 examination of the tissue of the 11 deceased since the tissue was missing 12 at the second autopsy. 13 He confirmed that there were many 14 penetrating wounds and described the 15 matter as undetermined. Dr. Wood 16 indicated that there was so much 17 overlap in the wounds that it was not 18 possible to line up canine dentition 19 patterns. There was no evidence of 20 injuries caused by dog claws. 21 The scratches on the bone could have 22 been post-mortem artifact. Both 23 doctors opined that someone had 24 interfered after the dog attack, given 25 the wiping and the absence of any paw

140

1 prints. 2 Both agreed that if any injury was 3 deeper than one and a quarter (1 1/4) 4 to two (2) inches, it could not have 5 been made by a dog. 6 Dr. Wood would agree with Dr. Smith 7 that the tunnelling injury through the 8 thorax could not be done by a dog." 9 And first of all, do you recall a meeting 10 of that nature, and does this letter accurately reflect 11 where you were at? 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 13 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. And did you 14 have occasion, at some point, in the year 2000 following 15 that meeting, to meet with the defence counsel in the 16 case? 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I did. 18 MR. MARK SANDLER: And can you tell us 19 about that? How did that meeting come about, and what 20 happened at the meeting? 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It was at their 22 request, and I met in the basement at the Coroner's 23 Office with Mr. Napier and Ms. Hawthorn. And Michelle, a 24 pathology resident who was there at the time, met with 25 me.

141

1 And I believe I basically explained what I 2 thought and why I thought what I thought. 3 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And I -- 4 I'm assuming, from what you've said, that that reflected 5 an overall philosophy that you've described to the 6 Commissioner, that if the defence beckons, you're quite 7 prepared to meet with them. 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Absolutely. 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Did you 10 find it a useful exercise? 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I found it a terrifying 12 exercise. But I mean, it was useful -- I suppose it was 13 useful for them which is fine. And I'm happy to meet 14 with defence, and -- and this maybe brings up the idea of 15 property of witnesses. 16 And I get -- and I -- with apologies to 17 the Court -- Crown attorneys, I get the -- sometimes the 18 impression that when defence wants to talk to us, they 19 get this sour-milk-look on their face -- that they don't 20 really want us to talk to defence counsel. Like that -- 21 I -- I get that feeling. There's nothing said. 22 It's all sort of hand gestures and eye 23 signals that -- you know, that in some cases I've got 24 that feeling, and I -- I think that if there's anything 25 that can be done to take that off the table, it would be

142

1 useful. 2 But I met with them and answered whatever 3 questions they had. And I actually remember it being a - 4 - a not-unpleasant meeting -- 5 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- in particular with 7 Mr. Napier. 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: Now -- now you raise 9 an interesting sys -- systemic issue, which is on the one 10 (1) hand, it would be nice to create an environment that 11 -- that gives you confidence; that -- that there's no 12 difficulty going to meet with the defence. 13 But on the other side of the equation, has 14 any other defence counsel, in a case where you testified 15 for the Crown, ever approached you and sought to speak to 16 you in advance of your testimony? 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, they sometimes 18 come and speak to you just before you testify, but I take 19 that's a tactic at some point, but they're -- they have - 20 - usually in Court -- usually the day of Court they will 21 -- they might want to have -- draw you aside and ask you 22 some questions, which of course is the absolute wrong 23 time to do it, because you're tight as a drum, ready to 24 take the stand, so. 25 But generally there's -- the defence part

143

1 does not call me. 2 MR. MARK SANDLER: And -- and do you have 3 any explanation for why that's so? 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't know. I hope 5 it's not the perception that we don't -- that we are part 6 of the other team, because we are cl -- I don't consider 7 myself part of the police team. 8 I learned very, very long ago that you 9 listen to what the police have to say; you hold it in 10 your mind; and then you go about your merry way. 11 It's -- it's very up -- it's upsetting 12 that I've done a thousand (1,000) cases, and I've only 13 been called by defence one (1) or two (2) times. 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. So -- so 15 one (1) of the things that you'd like to see systemically 16 is that if there -- anything can be done to create a 17 culture where defence counsel feel comfortable calling 18 somebody who -- who's part of the Chief Coroner's Office? 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Absolutely. 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. If I can 21 move ahead to Tab 17 of the document brief, and it's 22 PFP081004. 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 24 MR. MARK SANDLER: And this is a letter 25 from an attorney in -- in Montreal that's directed to Dr.

144

1 Kogan, and it says: 2 "Thank you very much for your prompt 3 reply. I'm forwarding you the notes I 4 was referring to from my message. Dr. 5 Dorion was questioned by me on the 6 subject of these notes which are the 7 only notes in his file which reflect 8 any form of analysis of the bite 9 marks." 10 And then he goes through an explanation of 11 what happened in the case involving Dr. Dorion. And if 12 you can just go to the -- to the next tab, we see an e- 13 mail from -- from you to David Sweet, and it says: 14 "I hope this letter finds you well [and 15 so on] I need your help. Can you give 16 me the name of the Crown from Saskatoon 17 who invigilated Dorion this year? If 18 you can also cite the case that would 19 be a big help. I received some 20 information from Stan Kogan about a 21 case Bob did ages ago in northern 22 Quebec which has come under some form 23 of judicial review. It seems that Bob 24 may have cooked some data. The Crown 25 and cops in Kingston have asked me to

145

1 do a hatchet job on Dorion, so any help 2 you can offer, in extreme confidence, 3 would be most helpful." 4 And then he responded: 5 "Bob, please keep me advised of your 6 progress. I love this. Best wishes, 7 David." 8 And it appears that he's provided you some 9 information about the Saskatoon case that you were -- you 10 were asking about. 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: Can you help me out? 13 What's happening here? 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. This is a -- 15 David Sweet is a very good, very good friend of mine and 16 I'd never -- this -- I was -- I was astonished for two 17 (2) reasons when I saw this. One (1), is I don't know 18 how the Attorney General got it. And two (2), I was 19 astonished that there wasn't a lot of four (4) letter 20 words in here, because David and I are prone to launch 21 into a somewhat different kind of a language. 22 But, you know, when I do a case now that I 23 suspect is going to go to Court, I tell the attorney that 24 I have this particular case as -- as a burr in my saddle, 25 that this is something that might cast aspersion on my --

146

1 my effectiveness or my ability or capabilities as an 2 expert and I tell them that up-front. 3 And some people choose not to tell the 4 other side what their problem cases are. I figure 5 there's no such thing as a good surprise and this is a 6 perfect example. 7 And all I was -- and I was asked to find 8 out about the opposing expert and this -- this is 9 unfortunate language. I wasn't asked to do a hatchet 10 job. This -- this man's my friend and everyone 11 understands what we're talking about and Stan Kogan is my 12 friend as well. 13 I knew that there were some cases that -- 14 that Dr. Dorion had that were problematic for him. 15 There's actually another one, Regina v. Stillman 16 (phonetic), I believe is also another one of his cases. 17 And all it -- when the Crown, or the 18 police asked me to find out if, in quotation marks, 19 "about the other expert," they're obviously going to ask 20 me. I mean, if you want to know about a milkman you ask 21 another milkman, if you want to know about a forensic 22 odontologist when there's only three (3) in Canada that 23 are Board certi -- or four (4) that are Board certified, 24 you're obviously going to ask the forensic odontologist 25 to find out about the other expert.

147
  1                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   I guess what I want to
  2  ask you systemically is -- and leaving aside the
  3  unfortunate choice of language which -- which I hear you
  4  saying was done in -- in a private e-mail and not -- not
  5  truly for public consumption -- but where does one draw
  6  the line in a -- in a way that ensures that the experts
  7  maintain an objectivity and don't become advocates?
  8                 DR. ROBERT WOOD:   Well, in this case I
  9  never investigated any of these three (3) cases.  I found
 10  out about these cases and that was it.  I didn't go back
 11  and -- and go to -- I didn't phone -- I don't believe I
 12  talked to Mr. Filto Belo Emarendo (phonetic), Mr. Bellow,
 13  I guess, and say, Well, okay, what was going on?  And I
 14  didn't -- I didn't talk to these Crown; I said, These are
 15  the cases.  You guys figure it out.  This is your -- this
 16  is your part of the equation, the adversarial part.
 17                 But it does put experts in an adversarial
 18  position against each other, which is unfortunate.  And
 19  it -- it's unfortunately if it -- if it can't be
 20  remediated.  I mean, I've testified against friends --
 21  I've done so in Nova Scotia -- and I'm still friends with
 22  those people.  You can do it.
 23                 But it -- you know, this -- there has to
 24  be some other way of getting information about experts
 25  other than making the expert -- siccing one expert on

148

1 another expert, to use the dog analogy. 2 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. If I can move 3 ahead, Mr. Bradley was here yesterday, who became the 4 Crown counsel on the case, and he -- he said that, at 5 some point in 2000, he -- he met with you, and this is 6 reflected at Tab 21 of the materials, PFP136203. 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: And -- and he's 9 outlined what he took from the conversation which, in 10 effect, was that your observations are, as set out in 11 your second report: That you relied upon Dr. Smith for 12 his observations of the neck injury and it's depth; that 13 you're interested in the marks in the skull which were 14 later the subject of Dr. Symes examination. 15 "He wasn't sure about the holes in the 16 skull, and Dr. Wood seemed embarrassed 17 over his first opinion, but seemed to 18 be sticking by his second report with 19 the qualifications as set out above." 20 And does that fairly set out what would 21 have been said in the course of your meeting with Mr. 22 Bradley? 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I think that's a fair 24 summary. I mean, obviously, I was embarrassed. No one 25 likes to be wrong. But that's -- I think that's a fair -

149

1 - it's a summary of -- of what I was thinking. 2 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Now at -- 3 at some point, did it come to your attention that Dr. 4 Ferris had prepared a report setting out, in some detail, 5 the basis for his view that -- that this was a dog bite 6 case? 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I haven't seen Dr. 8 Ferris' report, but I -- I believe he produced a report. 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: Well, did the Crown 10 not provide Dr. Ferris' report to you for -- for your 11 comments? 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't recall. 13 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Would that 14 have been a helpful exercise? 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah, absolutely, to 16 have the other side -- to know what the other side is 17 thinking. 18 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. If you 19 look at page 128 of the overview report, we have his 20 actual report, but it's been well-summarized in the 21 overview report, and it's a little easier to read here. 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: 128. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25

150

1 MR. MARK SANDLER: At page 128, at 2 paragraph 294, Dr. Ferris concludes that Sharon died from 3 dog bites, and he makes the following comments, and 4 insofar as he's referring to Dr. Smith's testimony at the 5 Preliminary Inquiry, I understand that you may not have 6 had the benefit of reading that preliminary hearing 7 transcript, or have you since? 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: The preliminary hearing 9 of Dr....? 10 MR. MARK SANDLER: Smith. 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I've seen it in the 12 past. I... 13 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. So I'm -- I'm 14 going to place less emphasis on some of these than -- 15 than others, because some of them are -- are really quite 16 directly relevant to what Dr. Smith had to say about some 17 issues that are beyond your expertise. 18 And if you look at Item F, Dr. Ferris says 19 that: 20 "Dr. Smith concluded that a cleanly cut 21 margin of present excluded a potential 22 dog injury. In the Dingo baby case, 23 Dr. Ferris noted extensive experimental 24 studies carried out by a number of 25 independent experts for the Royal

151

1 Commission. Showed that a wild dog 2 could produce linear and planer cuts in 3 fabric with the carnassial teeth, and 4 also with their incisor teeth, and the 5 dingo teeth produce cuts in the fabric 6 in the same manner." 7 Is that accurate? 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. I don't even 9 want to get into speculating. I've never even seen a 10 dingo, and I certainly am not an expert in textile 11 damage, so. I mean, I don't know what to say. 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Item H: 13 "Dr. Smith offered no reasonable 14 explanation for the multiple, 15 irregular, broad linear abrasions on 16 Sharon. In Dr. Ferris' view, these 17 injuries were characteristic of dog 18 claw marks or dog teeth scraping the 19 skin surface. None of these abrasions 20 were consistent with having been caused 21 by either scissors or a knife." 22 Leaving aside the last line, do you agree 23 with Dr. Ferris? 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Some of the marks, I -- 25 I -- some of the marks actually were single marks. Now a

152

1 dog has more than one (1) claw, even this dog. And so I 2 couldn't see some of the single marks. But all an 3 abrasion is -- is a sharp object being either held still 4 or moving, and moving across the skin. 5 So there were some areas where there were 6 single abrasions. Now in the wolf case that I saw, there 7 were actually -- you could actually see where the wolf 8 was -- was -- there were four (4) or five (5) claws 9 going, which I took to be more characteristic of your 10 typical dog. 11 So, I mean, I -- but I really -- I really 12 can't comment on what Dr. Smith was thinking and what Dr. 13 Ferris was thinking about claw marks. 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. Item K: 15 "Dr. Wood stated in his report that dog 16 bites generally occurred in the limbs 17 and not the head, neck, and shoulder 18 girdle as in this case. Dr. Ferris 19 noted that Dr. Wood presented a case of 20 a domestic dog attack with injuries in 21 the neck and arm region at a conference 22 of the American Academy of Forensic 23 Sciences." 24 Apparently he was listening to you. Any 25 comment on that?

153

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. I did. But you 2 have to remember that this -- the context -- the context 3 of that particular case, it was the Peters' case, and 4 this - as I said, this is a man who -- who for some 5 strange reason tormented two (2) very large pit bulls, 6 and -- and let them out of the cage -- and had been put 7 in the hospital pre -- on prior occasions. 8 So this is the -- this is a man who -- I 9 don't know what he was thinking, but when the dogs got 10 out, two (2) dogs attacked him and virtually ripped him 11 apart. 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. If you go to 13 the next page, page 130, Item L: 14 "Dr. Wood stated that the markings on 15 Sharon lacked any smaller markings from 16 the incisor teeth, although in Dr. 17 Ferris' opinion, such markings were 18 clearly illustrated in the post-mortem 19 photographs." 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Okay, I'm officially 21 lost. So where -- oh, on 130 on the PFP. Okay. I'm 22 sorry. 23 MR. MARK SANDLER: So I just read to you 24 Item L. 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I didn't see

154

1 them. 2 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Item M: 3 "Dr. Smith concluded that the three (3) 4 penetrating marks to the skull were 5 inconsistent with dog teeth marks. In 6 Dr. Ferris' opinion, the post-mortem 7 photographs showed almost circular 8 areas of indented penetrating fractures 9 characteristic of animal tooth bite 10 marks." 11 Any comment? 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I guess the -- 13 the only comment I have when I hear all these com -- all 14 your comments is, I mean I guess this is why we have 15 trials; is so that the experts can say their piece, or 16 some other form -- some other forum, where -- where the 17 experts can say their piece and be cross-examined. 18 And I mean, this is his -- Dr. Ferris 19 isn't here, and I -- he said what he said, and I said 20 what he said -- what I said, rather, and you know, I -- I 21 don't know what to say now. 22 Like I said, it's -- 23 MR. MARK SANDLER: Well, let me read you 24 two (2) more, and then -- 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yep.

155

1 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- because I -- I hear 2 where you're coming from, and I -- I just want to ask you 3 a question arising out of it. 4 But I thought in fairness, you should see 5 these: 6 "And Dr. Smith concluded that the depth 7 of the penetration of one (1) of the 8 neck injuries could not have been made 9 by a canine tooth, which measures up to 10 two (2) centimetres. In Dr. Ferris' 11 opinion, the skin of the neck and 12 tissues of the neck were capable of 13 distortion and stretching, and it's 14 possible that the true depth of the 15 penetration of this injury might have 16 been as little as one point five (1.5) 17 centimetres." 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah, I don't even know 19 what he's talking about there. I -- I presume he's 20 talking about the injury that goes in at the right 21 mandible and -- and ends up at the opposite side at 22 thoracic vertebrae number three (3) at the -- at the 23 posterior rib heads, which in my way of thinking, is 24 about six (6) inches; not three (3) centimetres. 25 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And then:

156

1 "Oh, in Dr. Ferris' view, Dr. Smith may 2 have been correct in his conclusion 3 that the cause of death was 4 exsanguation. Dr. Ferris concluded 5 that the deep injuries in the back of 6 the neck, and the presence of a one (1) 7 chip of bone in the cervical vertebrae 8 indicated that there may have been a 9 fatal biting injury to the cervical 10 spine." 11 And then he says: 12 "Dr. Ferris was surprised that Dr. 13 Smith had not performed a dissection of 14 the spinal canal and spinal cord." 15 And I won't ask you to comment upon the 16 adequacy of the autopsy. 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah, well I can't 18 comment on the adequacy of the autopsy 'cause I wasn't 19 there. 20 And I still don't -- this is -- this is 21 the other part, in addition to the sharp marks of the 22 skull, that I think I'd like -- I would like someone to 23 explain to me how you can have a -- an injury that goes 24 in on the right mandible and ends up on the opposite 25 side, three (3) vertebrae down from the most prominent

157

1 vertebrae at the back of the neck, and have that -- as 2 represented to me as a single wound track -- how that can 3 be made by a dog's tooth. 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. Now, I showed 5 you all of that for -- for a reason, because I hear the 6 bottomline, which is reasonable people differ, and that's 7 why we have expert opinions and the like. 8 But let's think systemically about -- 9 about what might have happened differently here. Dr. 10 Ferris prepares a very detailed report that sets out his 11 reasons why, in his view, this was a dog attack. 12 From your perspective as an expert, and 13 let's assume that the case was continuing on, and that 14 the Crown intended to rely upon your evidence at trial, 15 what would your expectations be about A) receiving this 16 report, B) reevaluating your opinion based upon the 17 report, C) meeting with forensic pathologists in 18 connection with the report. 19 Help me out as to that. What would you 20 like to see happen? 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I -- I think that -- 22 what I'd like to see happen, and it's in my suggestions, 23 is that I'd like to see a mediated meeting of all the 24 experts prior to the commencement of the trial. 25 I think that it's -- you know, there's

158

1 nuance that you can give in -- in person-to-person, or 2 even on a -- on a teleconferencing that you cannot get 3 from the written word. 4 And so -- and -- and also to be allowed to 5 ask questions of one another. I think I would prefer 6 that than to reading a position that Dr. Ferris has taken 7 at one (1) point in time, and perhaps, he would change 8 his position if -- if we told him what we were thinking. 9 I mean both sides might meet somewhere in 10 the middle or not or they might at least identify areas 11 where they agree completely and other areas where they 12 cannot agree and the reasons why. But that would be -- 13 that's something that I -- I don't see happening by a 14 simple exchange of reports. 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. 16 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Mediated by 17 whom? 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, this is an 19 interesting thing, Mr. Commissioner. I think it has to 20 be mediated by a mediator. I don't think it can be 21 mediated -- 22 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: A non- 23 scientist. 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: A non-scientist, 25 because if you -- look, I mean, we all know Dr. Pollanen

159

1 is an extremely confident pa -- pathologist and -- and 2 he's a forceful personality, and if -- and there are 3 forceful personalities in every field of endeavour, and 4 if you leave it up to the forceful person, and I like to 5 think that I am -- well, I don't like to think, I've been 6 told I'm a forceful personality -- so I think that if you 7 end up with a group of experts in the room, it will be 8 the biggest -- for lack of a better term, the biggest 9 dog's opinion will win out. 10 And so I think that there are sometimes, 11 and I see this with graduate students, people who are in 12 a less -- lesser position in the pack -- 13 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: So it 14 levels the playing field. 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Exactly. A lesser 16 position in the pack who are afraid to say what they want 17 to say because they -- they don't want to irritate the 18 boss, so I think mediated by a mediator. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. If we can move 22 ahead to page 131 of the overview report, paragraph 297, 23 and this reflects that on September the 18th of 2000, 24 Detective Kennedy and Mr. Bradley, the Crown, met with 25 you and Dr. Smith in Toronto.

160

1 Do you remember this meeting? 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I -- I don't remember 3 it. I remember meeting with Mr. Bradley. I just 4 remember Mr. Bradley. I don't dispute that I met with 5 him, but I have no real recollection of the -- of the 6 time, like the exact time. 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: Well, let me just read 8 you what Detective Kennedy's notes of the meeting are and 9 just ask you to comment. It says: 10 "Headless dog study, skull or weapon 11 artifact study." 12 Now, just stopping there. Would you know 13 what that might be referable to? 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, the headless dog 15 study -- the infamous headless dog study -- was -- was -- 16 I -- Mr. Blenkinsop and I went and -- went to the 17 Coroner's Office; we're trying to disprove a hypothesis 18 or -- or prove it. 19 We went to the -- to the Humane Society, 20 and they had had humanely destroyed pit bulls and we got 21 them. And so I wanted to see, Is there anything peculiar 22 about these dogs that I don't know about -- like do they 23 have particularly long teeth. And -- and also to look at 24 -- do they -- are these dogs that might have no anterior 25 teeth which I didn't think, but I said, Until I have a

161

1 sample, I don't really know for sure. 2 And so we gathered these dogs up, we 3 decapitated them, and we de-fleshed them and examined 4 them, and -- and examined their dentitions. And you need 5 to bear in mind a pit bull is very broad definition of a 6 dog's -- basically a muscular short-haired dog with a 7 head like a brick that would -- you know, any dog that 8 fits in there is going to be called a pit bull -- ranging 9 in size from 30 to 70 pounds. 10 We -- we did the headless dog -- we -- we 11 euphemistically called it, "The Headless Dog Study". 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And the 13 skull/weapon artifact study, do you know what that is? 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah, I'm not sure what 15 that is, actually. 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And then 17 you see: 18 "Ferris not allowed to do autopsies in 19 BC. Dorion never published a 20 scientific artifact. Michael Pollanen 21 has discredited Ferris before at trial. 22 Dorion, Saskatchewan trial, Milgard 23 case for the defence. Had first seen 24 case morning. He flew in, had agreed 25 to take same day before."

162

1 Then as a reference to a public inquiry: 2 "Connection with a case in laboratory." 3 Then on the following page: 4 "Dirt on Dorion and Ferris; commit to a 5 theory and stick to it." 6 Now, just stopping there for a moment. It 7 sure sounds adversarial to me. 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah, it does sound 9 adversarial, but it -- it -- that's -- it's police notes, 10 not mine. 11 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Well, can 12 you assist with the benefit of the notes as to what role 13 you might have been engaged in in the context of this 14 meeting? 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Oh, well, I -- I'm 16 certainly involved in the headless dog study because I 17 was doing the headless dog study -- I shouldn't even call 18 it the headless dog study -- we were just putting 19 together a group of pit bull attacks. 20 The rest of it, I -- I'm not sure; I think 21 you'd have to ask the policeman what he was thinking. I 22 -- I wasn't make -- I wasn't saying, Write this down; he 23 was making his own notes, and so I don't know what he was 24 -- you know, I think the dirt on Dorion and Ferris is 25 probably something referring to the -- you know, me

163

1 collecting information on problematic cases. So that's 2 all -- I mean, that's really all I can say on -- these -- 3 these aren't my notes, so. 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: And -- and I 5 appreciate that. And I appreciate your limited 6 recollection, but recognizing that you're -- that they're 7 not your notes, nonetheless, it would appear that -- that 8 aspects of the -- the facts that are being referred to 9 here, or the allegations that are being referred to here 10 are coming from that work that had been described in the 11 email exchange earlier that -- that you'd had on Dr. 12 Dorion, is that fair? 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Are you saying that 14 finding out about the problematic cases could be equated 15 to a policeman writing dirt on Dorion? 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: I'm saying that when 17 they're talking about: 18 "Ferris not allowed to do autopsies in 19 BC, Dorion never published a scientific 20 artifact, Michael Pollanen has 21 discredited Ferris." 22 And -- and so on. Is this information 23 that's coming to the police from you and/or Dr. Smith? 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I have no idea. I 25 don't have no -- I've no memory of saying, You know, you

164

1 have to do this or you have to do that. I'm not 2 directing the investigation or the -- the strategy for 3 the Crown. 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: Some of this 5 information seems to relate to the kinds of information 6 that you were talking about earlier -- 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- that was my point. 9 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 10 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And the 11 comment -- comment to -- "commit to a theory and stick to 12 it"? 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah, I don't -- I 14 don't... 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: You don't know what 16 that is? 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't understand 18 that. 19 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Now at 20 some point, Dr. Symes became involved in -- in this case. 21 Do you recall the circumstances in which Dr. Symes became 22 involved? 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, it's -- it's my 24 recollection that -- that Dr. Cairns came to me and said, 25 You know, may -- this is -- this is how I understand it

165

1 from my perspective; that would I like to look at the 2 wounds and the weapons on the skull. 3 And I said to him -- I said, Jim, I've 4 already been -- my reputation has already been impugned 5 in this case. I've already made a mistake. So I think 6 in fairness to everybody, it would be better to get 7 somebod -- to get the best people. 8 And -- and Dr. Cairns -- and I -- he said, 9 Who is that, and I identified Dr. Symes at -- he's in 10 Memphis or was in Memphis. And I said, That's who you 11 should go to, because he's the one who did -- I think he 12 did his PhD on saw cuts and bones, so if you're 13 interested in cut marks on bone, this is obviously the 14 man that you want to go to. 15 And so I presumed that that -- he took 16 that advice from me and -- and went that way. I said, I 17 don't want -- it's not that I didn't want to do it. I'd 18 said, Look, I've already been called into question here. 19 My opinion's been called into question. Why would you 20 even want to use me, and he agreed. 21 And so I -- that was my understanding of 22 it, that -- and then they agreed to go to Dr. Symes. 23 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And we -- 24 we later -- we heard from Mr. Bradley that -- that he 25 contacted you after Dr. Symes opinion had been obtained,

166

1 and that -- that you confirmed that -- that he was the 2 guy, he was the -- 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- go-to-guy so to 5 speak? 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: He was -- he is -- he 7 was and he is. 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And -- and 9 was his opinion shared with you? 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. 11 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I saw his report when 13 Mr. Centa interviewed me. 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Back then 15 was there any interest or consideration in you getting 16 the report in order to inform where your opinion may go 17 as a result of what he had to say? 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well again, that's -- 19 that's the problem with -- with defence -- or with any 20 expert or any person who's going to testify; is like, how 21 much is everybody going to get together and make their 22 stories align? 23 So I assumed at some -- I assumed, at some 24 point, this would be going to trial or not. And at that 25 point then, the Crown attorney or the defence or whoever

167

1 would put the case together. 2 It wasn't up to me to put the case 3 together and say what -- what Dr. Symes -- to integrate 4 what Dr. Symes said, because at that time, I understood 5 that everybody brings their cards to the table and is 6 examined and cross-examined, and then after that the -- 7 the trier of fact finds out -- or delivers a finding of 8 fact. 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: Well, it -- it may be 10 my shortcoming, but I'll, kind of, put this to you, and 11 that is that I hear what you say about the -- the 12 benefits -- and we've heard this from a number of 13 witnesses -- the benefits of bringing all of the experts 14 together in a regime where they'll talk to each other, 15 reach certain common ground and at least, narrow their 16 differences. 17 And that's obviously something that you 18 whole-heartedly support? 19 But when we're dealing with this case at 20 that time, and -- and it was still unknown whether or not 21 you'd end up being a witness for the prosecution to 22 support the theory that was being presented by the Crown. 23 As information is coming in, Dr. Ferris' 24 report and Dr. Symes' report and so on, could you see 25 that -- that maybe a review of their reports could impact

168

1 upon your opinion and cause you to change it yet again? 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Absolutely. Any -- I 3 mean as an expert you reserve the right to amend your 4 opinion when further information -- 5 MR. MARK SANDLER: Of course. 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- becomes available. 7 But if it never becomes available to you, you can never 8 amend your opinion. 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: Well, but that's why 10 I'm asking you that was -- was there any ever 11 consideration on your part as Dr. Ferris' -- as you 12 became known that Dr. Ferris was expressing an opinion 13 contrary to you; that Dr. Dorion was expressing an 14 opinion contrary to you; that Dr. Symes had come in and - 15 - and -- in with an opinion; to -- to asking for those 16 opinions, and reevaluating your opinion based upon that 17 information? 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Did I think of doing -- 19 taking their comments -- 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: Yeah. 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- no. 22 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I didn't see that as my 24 role as to -- is to -- because I don't know what else is 25 out there. I mean, I don't -- I didn't know that they

169

1 had a -- well, I did know that they had a videotape of 2 the dog showing it's scissors. 3 I mean, there's -- I mean, you know, I 4 have no idea what's out there until someone tells me 5 what's available. 6 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. And if you go 7 to Tab 25 of the document brief that you have. 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: This is an email from 10 -- from you to Dr. Smith dated June the 26th of 2003. 11 It's PFP132216. 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 13 MR. MARK SANDLER: It's kind of eerie 14 that the Registrar has it up even before I called the 15 numbers out, but -- and it says: 16 "Hi Charles. I'm doing a talk with an 17 OPP identification officer in Ottawa, 18 and we met to finalize some 19 arrangements and so on. He asked me 20 about..." 21 And it's this case: 22 "...and I..." 23 It's the civil case, I take it: 24 "...and I told him that there's a 25 delay. He told me that Gordon

170

1 Strowbridge, the fellow who was 2 sleeping upstairs at the time of the 3 dog attack, and then who didn't hear 4 anything and didn't wake up when she 5 was dying, has been convicted of 6 killing a woman eleven (11) years ago 7 in Cape Breton. The article below is 8 particularly interesting because she 9 was stabbed in the head and torso 10 numerous times, and also had her skull 11 punctured by stabbing. Sounds 12 familiar, don't you think? Anyway, 13 I've told my lawyer, and I thought you 14 might like to tell your lawyer as well. 15 They can check out whether it's the 16 same guy, but my contact of the OPP 17 said that it was the same Strowbridge 18 who was just convicted. Perhaps we 19 were not wrong after all." 20 Well, what was the thinking that prompted 21 that? 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, this is past. 23 Now we're -- now we're past where there's -- there's 24 other issues in the case. 25 And you know, I learned about this

171

1 actually from -- I learned about this from Detective 2 Sergeant Norman who I had actually come across many 3 times, and actually, I believe he was at Sharon's first 4 autopsy. 5 And he happened to tell me about this 6 case, and independently, someone else in Kenora, another 7 OPP officer who I believe was the man who was the 8 undercover agent in the Strowbridge case, also asked me 9 about it. 10 Do you know about the case from Kingston, 11 and I said, Oh, I'm very much aware of the case from 12 Kingston, believe me. 13 And I -- so I phoned the police and I sa - 14 - really to find out whether they knew that this fellow 15 was in -- was this the same fellow who was in the house, 16 and -- and there was a very -- you know, one (1) thing 17 about working with needles and rotary instruments is you 18 get a really good feeling of what people are thinking. 19 And there was an absolute dead silence on 20 the other end of the line in Kingston, and I thought, Oh, 21 they didn't really -- actually they didn't want us to 22 know this. 23 And I said to them, I said, You know, this 24 is unfair that you didn't share this with us. That you 25 knew that there was -- at some point, you must have known

172

1 that this was -- that there was someone who was in the 2 house who later became convicted of murder, and I would 3 think that it would be reasonable for you to share it 4 with us. 5 And, so I said to the policeman, I said, I 6 have no intention of calling the press. It's not my job 7 to defend myself in the press. You take your lumps in 8 this job. And I'm not going to make a big stink about 9 it. 10 But I am going to contact Dr. Smith 11 because I think, in fairness to him, he has the right to 12 know that in the house, at the same time with this little 13 girl, was a man who was later convicted of killing 14 someone by stabbing them to death. And I even believe 15 some of the marks were stab marks in the head. 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. I want to take 17 a moment, if I may, and turn to the Jenna case. 18 Commissioner, I'm only going to be about 19 another five (5) to ten (10) minutes. Perhaps I should 20 complete the examination-in-chief before the lunch break, 21 if I may? 22 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: Why don't we 23 do that? 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER:

173

1 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And I'm 2 only going to briefly deal with the Jenna case, because 3 there -- I haven't heard much controversy over your role 4 in the case. 5 You'll recall this had to do with what you 6 described as a probable bite mark that was found on -- on 7 Jenna's body. Do -- do you remember the case? 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes, I do remember the 9 case. 10 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And -- and 11 we've heard from Dr. Milroy that that was an autopsy 12 where Dr. Smith should have brought you in, at the time, 13 and that there's certain work that could have been done 14 in connection with -- with that item by you. 15 And I -- I take it -- would you agree that 16 this was an appropriate case, again, to have you attend 17 the -- the autopsy to address this item? 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: This is -- this is a 19 critical case, because there are protocols for doing bite 20 mark data collection. And we have a protocol that all 21 the dentists that do bite marks in the Province use, and 22 it's very standard. And I believe, if I remember 23 correctly, it was -- it was called a bite mark in either 24 notes or the autopsy report. 25 MR. MARK SANDLER: That's correct.

174

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: And I would have 2 thought since the autopsy -- I believe it was done in 3 Sick Children's, I'm not sure, and I'm right across the 4 street -- and I had been to Sick Children's for the SCAN 5 Team on a couple of occasions. 6 So I didn't -- couldn't understand why I 7 wasn't called to look at that because that -- now, I was 8 asked years later and say, What can I say about it, and I 9 can say, Well, I agree with what's in Dr. Smith's report; 10 it is a probable bite mark, but -- and there is a bite 11 mark. 12 You know we have scales of certainty, 13 but... 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: Which I'm going to 15 take you to in a moment. 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah, thank you. And - 17 - and I -- I would have thought that, you know, it would 18 have been useful to, at least, get as much information as 19 possible from that, because there is a series of steps 20 that we follow that can -- that can -- 21 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Who 22 developed the protocol, Dr. Wood? 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: The protocol is done -- 24 it's the -- the protocol is the American Board of 25 Forensic Odontology.

175

1 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Okay. 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: And we used that 3 protocol in a recent PhD student's thesis. And it's -- 4 we can get into it. It's -- it's quite lengthy, so 5 perhaps you don't want to, but it -- it do -- it allows 6 for maximum evidence collection. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 9 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right, and is that 10 a protocol that's been adopted by the Chief Coroner's 11 Office here as -- as a -- 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: In as much as I do them 13 all, and I'm doing almost all of them for the Province 14 now because there's this hesitancy for other people to 15 even do bite mark analysis. 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. What I'll 17 ask you to do, rather than go through the details of the 18 protocol now, is perhaps we can get a copy of it and 19 I'll -- 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It's available online. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. You can 22 provide that information -- 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. 24 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- to counsel and -- 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes.

176

1 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- and we'll get that. 2 If -- if you can go to Tab 31. And I guess I should ask 3 you -- sorry, just before we do that -- I guess I should 4 ask you this -- that without getting all the details of 5 what the protocol mandates, had you been called into the 6 autopsy in Jenna, how would you have contributed to how 7 that possible or probable bite mark was dealt with? 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I would have -- well, I 9 would have done all the data collection, and I might have 10 even used alternate light source to do photography to 11 look for subsurface damage. 12 And basically what you're looking for in a 13 case like that is whether you can exclude as a possible 14 biter or include a possible biter, and that could have 15 been -- that might have been pivotal. 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And -- and 17 again, this issue of saliva -- 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. 19 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- I raised with you 20 in connection with Sharon, could one take swabs? 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's -- that's part 22 of the protocol. Yeah, that's part of the protocol. 23 Actually Dr. Sweet developed something called the "Double 24 Swab Technique" where you can -- you can swab for a human 25 salivary DNA of which there are probes.

177

1 And you -- again, that -- that technique 2 is -- I can get you the information on the technique -- 3 but that would be part of my normal work up -- is to do a 4 double swab technique, unless the body had been washed 5 vigorously, and if there was a bite mark, it shouldn't be 6 washed. They should call me right away. 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: Okay. If you go to 8 Tab 31, and it's the last document that I'm going to take 9 you to -- 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 11 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- PFP011110, and this 12 is the odontology report that -- that you prepared in 13 connection with this case, am I right? 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: And what I'm 16 interested in, for the Commissioner's benefit, since this 17 -- this has been a topic that has come up a number of 18 times -- is that: Does the American Board of Forensic 19 Odontology articulate terms to describe a degree of 20 confidence that an injury is a bite mark? 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: They do. And they've 22 actually -- I think they've changed since this. I think 23 they were changed in -- in -- just after this because you 24 could, at that time, have a possible bite mark and a 25 definite match which is silly.

178

1 This is -- I don't agree with everything 2 that the ABFO has in their bite mark guidelines, but, you 3 know, it's all common sensical. 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And do the 5 guidelines not out -- not only set out the terms, but do 6 they provide some guidance as to when each of the terms 7 should be used? 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes, in fact, I've 9 listed them, actually, in here, but I believe they've -- 10 I said they've changed since then. 11 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And again, 12 what -- what we'd ask you to do is, perhaps through your 13 counsel, if -- if we could get the latest in that regard, 14 that might be very helpful. 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. Now, the 17 last thing I wanted to ask you about is, as I do with 18 every witness, this is an opportunity for you to provide 19 any recommendations that you'd like the Commissioner to 20 consider arising out of your experience in this or other 21 cases. 22 Do you have recommendations that you'd 23 like to -- 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I -- I do. 25 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- advance to the

179

1 Commissioner? 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I do. Should I just 3 read them? 4 MR. MARK SANDLER: Yeah, why don't you go 5 ahead. 6 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Yeah, just 7 go ahead, Dr. Wood, it would be helpful. 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I think that -- in no 9 particular order, I think that it's necessary to 10 formalize the relationship between forensic experts, 11 including forensic odontologists, forensic 12 anthropologists, entomologists, and others that fall 13 outside the umbrella of the Centre of Forensic Science, 14 but are used by the Chief Coroner's Office and other 15 Coroner's Offices. 16 Additionally, coroners and police services 17 should be directed to only use qualified forensic 18 personnel that have been vetted by the Chief Coroner's 19 Office. 20 The second one (1) is to provide resources 21 for identification of suitable candidates and mentoring 22 or apprenticing-type training of forensic odontologist in 23 the province of Ontario. And I have two (2) forensic 24 odontologists who are age sixty-seven (67). I'll be 25 fifty (50) next year and I'm the youngest Board Certified

180

1 forensic dentist in Canada. And I have someone in their 2 forties. 3 There has to be resources, and this would 4 include paying for continuing education and attendance at 5 annual meetings. But, also, if I bring someone in to 6 train, it's -- there's a disincentive for me to do that 7 because it takes twice as long for me to do the case and 8 if that person's expecting a fee -- the trainee is 9 expecting a fee -- then that means I'm not getting the 10 fee. 11 And I don't want to look greedy but it -- 12 there's a disincentive financially to train new forensic 13 odontologists -- be it's -- there's going to have the 14 resources. 15 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: When you 16 speak of new forensic -- 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Up -- Upcoming, and the 18 -- and the -- 19 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: But you 20 would mean had doctors -- 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: People who want -- 22 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: -- of 23 dentistry who had exhibited an interest -- 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Doctors of dentistry -- 25 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: -- in

181

1 forensics. 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Doctors of dentistry, 3 not only who exhibit an interest but have preferably a -- 4 a Masters degree in diagnostics or a diagnostic special 5 like pathology, radiology or oral surgery, I suppose, but 6 some kind of -- they've shown by virtue of the fact that 7 they haven't just gone to a weekend course. They have a 8 definite interest. 9 And lots of people have interest, but they 10 have interest for the wrong reasons. So I think that we 11 have to identify suitable candidates and provide funds 12 for their appropriate apprenticeship and -- and training, 13 because the only way to learn it is case-by-case. 14 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Do dentists 15 who are at the mature stage of their career ever shift to 16 forensics? 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I get a lot of calls, 18 Mr. Commissioner, from people who are bored of their 19 practice, who want to do forensic dentistry because 20 they -- 21 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Those are 22 the ones you say who are watching CSI. 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. They have too 24 much time on their hands and the remote control. And 25 that's not -- we were looking for -- obviously I don't

182

1 want to replace myself with someone older than myself. I 2 want to replace myself with someone who's coming out of a 3 graduate training program. 4 And I've -- I've helped one (1) who is now 5 in Quebec City with a PhD and -- and publications and 6 case work and forensic odontology. Unfortunately, she's 7 not in Ontario, but she's very good, and I would like to 8 see that continue. And I think there has to be 9 resources. 10 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Okay. 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I think that -- and 12 I've offered this -- mandatory presentations by the 13 forensic odontologists at new coroner's training courses, 14 forensic pathologist courses, new Crown attorney's 15 courses, and also police colleges which I've also done. 16 I've offered to do this, and I hope to be taken up on 17 that. 18 And to cover specific things: When the 19 forensic odontologist needs to be present at an autopsy, 20 what materials are needed to provide an opinion in bite- 21 mark cases? And how the forensic dentist can assist in 22 body identification cases in a collection of appropriate 23 anti-mortem and post-mortem information. And also use of 24 materials that can accurately and permanently record 25 physical changes on bodies.

183
  1                 The fourth one is what I call Mandatory
  2  Mediated Case Conferences, including, perhaps,
  3  teleconferences of all experts to identify areas where
  4  they can agree, where they cannot agree, and the reasons
  5  why, as well as a publication ban on the outcome of these
  6  meetings until after completion of the case.
  7                 I'll just leave it at that.  
  8                 And mandatory anti-reappointment forms: 
  9  The public hospital -- I work in a public hospital. 
 10  Every year, I'm reappointed.  I have to sign a form
 11  saying that I'm -- I haven't been found lacking or I
 12  haven't done anything devious or rotten and I haven't --
 13  I haven't had a restriction on my area of practice.  I
 14  have to sign that every year.  
 15                 It goes to the credentials committee of
 16  the hospital, and I presume that they check it, and I
 17  think that would be useful for the Coroner's Office too. 
 18  It's just a -- it's just a mandatory reappointment form. 
 19  I'm reappointed every year, and I have to fill that form
 20  out for both hospitals I have privileges at.
 21                 And I'd like to see resources for
 22  development of a policies and procedures manual for
 23  forensic odontology in the Province of Ontario.  I've
 24  eluded to some of the things that we have put in place
 25  but I'd like to see that formalized.

184

1 Also I'd like to see mandated attendance 2 by forensic dentists at an autopsy when it's anticipated 3 they might eventually be called. And in the absence, if 4 we can't have mandated mediated case conferences, 5 realization by the defence bar that coroners' experts, as 6 near as I can tell, are more than happy to meet, talk, or 7 correspond with defence experts separate from the Crown 8 Attorney. 9 Also, recognition by all attorneys 10 involved that when a forensic expert ceases to practice, 11 this expert disappears from the Coroner's Office. So if 12 I was to decide that, you know -- coming here it's been 13 very pleasant so far -- but it's not something that 14 dentists like to do. Dentists -- there's not a dentist 15 in Ontario who would switch places with me. They would 16 rather stick a needle in their own eye. 17 So I think that -- that you have to 18 realize that if you -- if it becomes such a hostile 19 environment for forensic experts, they're going to quit. 20 And if they quit -- and it's taken me a long time to get 21 here -- that expertise also disappears for the defence 22 bar. I do defence cases. It disappears for mass 23 disaster teams. It disappears for project resolve; the 24 unidentified human cold cases. It disappears for 25 educating students. And it disappears particularly -- a

185

1 particular concern on mine is Children's Aid cases, most 2 of which I do for free. 3 But I do it at my own legal peril, because 4 I -- I do the cases -- Children's Aid cases for free. 5 Who am I to take funding away from a Children's Aid 6 Society that's got huge case loads, but that expertise is 7 gone. 8 It doesn't just -- when I -- when or if I 9 quit the Coroner's Office everything goes, so I think 10 that has to be recognized that we're not just doing 11 coroner's cases. 12 Another thing I'd like to see is that -- 13 formalize who is going to pay for what service and when. 14 Nearly all my cases come to me by the Coroner's Office. 15 I don't advertise, nor do -- nor do my colleagues. 16 Almost without exception, when there's a 17 case that ultimately ends up in court, when I'm 18 testifying for the Crown -- and I've already said it's 19 much more pleasant for me to testify for the defence -- I 20 have a -- I'm in a triad between the Crown attorney's 21 office, the Coroner's Office and the police, and nobody 22 wants to pay for the case. 23 Now I know this is a pecuniary thing, but 24 it is a thing that makes people irritated. And what 25 happens if you've -- you have done, in some cases, a

186

1 couple hundred hours worth of work in a case, and you're 2 never fully compensated for it. That's okay. 3 But you're left in -- between three (3) 4 people all of who are pointing at the other person that's 5 going to pay. And it should be set out -- there has not 6 been -- there was an agreement with the Attorney 7 General's Office, I believe, that they were going to be 8 paid X-amount of dollars. That agreement was in effect in 9 1992 when I started; I don't think it's ever been 10 updated, nor has the dollar figure ever been updated. 11 And lastly, that all persons involved in 12 the criminal justice system realize that scientists and 13 experts are offering opinion evidence, i.e., their 14 interpretation of the facts of the case. 15 Law and science speak different languages 16 and for a scientist or for someone who does a -- a 17 science background -- I do graduate training and -- and 18 have graduate students -- you have to be able to think 19 freely. You have to be able to think of rid -- sometimes 20 ridiculous things. And -- and you might keep notes of 21 these things, and if your notes are -- are subject to 22 discovery they're going to think, Well this guy's right 23 out -- out to lunch. 24 So we have to be allowed to be engaged in 25 free thinking as -- as experts, whether we're at the

187

1 Centre of Forensic Science or the Coroner's Office, so 2 that you can look at some pretty wild things and make 3 notations about them and rule them out, with the full 4 knowledge that if those documents are ever -- become 5 discoverable, that you -- that there's a realization by 6 people that, yeah, you were thinking of this, but you 7 were also thinking of this, and this, and this. 8 So you have to allow yourself the freedom 9 of being able to think of things that can happen, about 10 things that are -- might seem ridiculous at the time. 11 And that -- those are my comments, Mr. 12 Commissioner. 13 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Thanks, Dr. 14 Wood, that's helpful. 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: Thank you very much, 16 Dr. Wood. I can tell you, Commissioner, we've canvassed 17 time this morning, and it appears that we're still on 18 schedule if we were to resume at 2:15. 19 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: We'll rise 20 then until 2:15, and there'll be some questions from 21 others for you, Dr. Wood. 22 23 --- Upon recessing at 12:00 p.m. 24 --- Upon resuming at 2:15 p.m. 25

188

1 THE REGISTRAR: All Rise. Please be 2 seated. 3 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Okay. Ms. 4 Baron...? 5 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ERICA BARON: 7 MS. ERICA BARON: Good afternoon, Dr. 8 Wood. My name is Erica Baron, and I'm one of the lawyers 9 who acts for Dr. Smith. 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 11 MS. ERICA BARON: I have a few questions 12 for you today. I want to first just talk about the 1998 13 report that you drafted in this case, it's in tab 7 of 14 your binder, and it's PFP055695. 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 16 MS. ERICA BARON: Did I understand your 17 evidence this morning correctly that you understood you 18 were being asked to comment on this case because there 19 had been a new theory put forward by the defence that a 20 dog had been involved in the death of Sharon? 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's what I 22 understood. 23 MS. ERICA BARON: Okay. And you were 24 asked this morning about what you had available to you 25 and -- and you said, legitimately, you can't remember

189

1 whether you had all of the autopsy photos or not. And -- 2 but I take it you didn't express anywhere in the body of 3 your opinion in 1998 that you felt that you were limited 4 in any way by the materials that you had available to you 5 to provide your opinion? 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I didn't express that. 7 MS. ERICA BARON: Okay. And you were 8 prepared to provide an opinion on the case and what you 9 believe the causes of the wounds were or were not based 10 on the materials that you had available. 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No, I was prepared to 12 say that it was not a dog -- that's what I was prepared - 13 - as opposed to saying what it was. 14 MS. ERICA BARON: Fair enough. So you 15 were prepared to -- to provide your opinion that the 16 wounds that you observed in the autopsy photographs were 17 not a dog. 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Correct. 19 MS. ERICA BARON: And the opinion that 20 you expressed was without reservation. You didn't -- you 21 didn't feel any -- you didn't feel any doubt in your mind 22 at that time. 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Based on what I had and 24 the scenarios given, that's correct. 25 MS. ERICA BARON: Okay. Prior to

190

1 completing your 1998 report were you aware that Dr. Smith 2 had done the post-mortem examination? 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I'm not certain. I 4 can't remember. 5 MS. ERICA BARON: Okay. Were you aware 6 that Barry Blenkinsop had assisted with the post-mortem 7 examination? 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I was, inasmuch 9 as I -- I believed that he directed Constable Barrett to 10 me and he did most -- I think he most of the autopsies 11 back then anyway, most of the path assisting -- 12 MS. ERICA BARON: At the -- 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- did most of the 14 autopsies -- he did most of the pathology assisting. 15 MS. ERICA BARON: Okay. And do you 16 believe that you spoke with Mr. Blenkinsop prior to 17 finalizing your 1998 report? 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't think I spoke - 19 - spoke to Dr. -- or Mr. Blenkinsop. 20 MS. ERICA BARON: Okay. And do you 21 believe that you may have spoke with Dr. Chiasson at any 22 time prior to finalizing your report? 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No, I don't believe I 24 did. 25 MS. ERICA BARON: And with Dr. Cairns?

191

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. 2 MS. ERICA BARON: With Dr. Queen? 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. 4 MS. ERICA BARON: And -- but it -- I take 5 it -- it was fair that I understood your evidence this 6 morning that you don't -- you simply don't recall there 7 being a meeting at the Office of the Chief Coroner prior 8 to preparing your 1998 report? 9 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't believe there 10 was, but I don't have a chronology of, you know -- and 11 like -- poor excuse, but I'm a busy person who does other 12 things, most of which are outside of the coroner's 13 office, so and -- and many other coroner's cases, so I 14 don't have a secretary who can tell me what I was doing 15 at a certain point. 16 MS. ERICA BARON: Would it be fair to say 17 that from time to time you would be over at the Office of 18 the Chief Coroner's the -- the building where the Office 19 of the Chief Coroner is located? 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: At Grenville Street? 21 MS. ERICA BARON: Yes. 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes, I'm there fairly, 23 well, reasonably frequently, depending on the -- on the - 24 - how busy the year is. 25 MS. ERICA BARON: Right. And were you --

192

1 are you aware that Dr. Cairn's gave evidence to this 2 Inquiry that there was a meeting including you and -- and 3 the others that I just mentioned, Dr. Smith, Barry 4 Blenkinsop, in the weeks or months following the autopsy 5 on Sharon? 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, is this the 7 meeting where we were discussing the exhumation? 8 MS. ERICA BARON: No, are you aware that 9 Dr. Cairn's has given evidence that there were two (2) 10 meetings. There was one (1) shortly after the autopsy 11 took place, prior to the preliminary inquiry, and a 12 subsequent meeting? 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I'm not aware of that. 14 MS. ERICA BARON: All right. And Dr. 15 Cairn's indicated that you were present at that meeting, 16 and setting aside the fact that you don't recall, is it 17 fair to say that if there had been such a meeting in the 18 period after the autopsy and before the preliminary 19 inquiry, that the opinion you would have expressed at 20 such a meeting would have been consistent with -- 21 consistent with -- would have been the same as that found 22 in your 1998 report? 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: So, are you saying that 24 there's -- if there was a meeting -- 25 MS. ERICA BARON: Yes.

193

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- and if I recall that 2 I would -- that I may have been at the meeting, shortly 3 after the first autopsy report? 4 MS. ERICA BARON: Well, setting aside the 5 fact that you don't recall -- and -- and someone else 6 does have a recollection of that meeting -- if such a 7 meeting had been held and you were present, is it fair to 8 say that the opinion you would have expressed at that 9 time would have been the same as the opinion expressed in 10 your 1998 report? 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, it's hard to say. 12 That's -- I sort of feel like I'm through the looking 13 glass now, as if I re -- if I set aside the fact that I 14 don't remember being there and if someone said there was 15 a meeting, I mean, I don't -- if you -- if you want to 16 tell me -- look, after I issued this report I would have 17 had this opinion until such a time as we had the meeting 18 where we discussed the -- whether it was a miscarriage of 19 justice allegation or Mr. Rumble's notes to me, I would - 20 - I would of had no reason to change my mind. 21 It -- it I don't know whether that helps 22 you or not, but that's -- I'm trying to get around the -- 23 MS. ERICA BARON: It -- I -- I hear what 24 you're saying -- 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- the scenarios.

194

1 MS. ERICA BARON: I hear what you're 2 saying to be that until -- until you had the additional 3 information that was -- that was gained from the 4 exhumation your opinion would have been exactly the same, 5 regardless of when you were asked to look at the 6 photographs, until you got that additional information 7 from the exhumation, and the additional information that 8 other experts had provided different opinions. 9 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I -- I think that I 10 would, in the absence of actually seeing the body, I 11 would have held -- I would have probably maintained the 12 opinion, because it -- there's no interaction with the 13 other experts. 14 I mean, a -- a report from an expert in an 15 adversarial process is -- is you're getting their 16 opinion, and they've been retained for this reason, and 17 so I think that I would of -- I probably would have 18 reserved any further amendments to my opinion unt -- 19 until the exhumation, which I -- I thought was going to 20 happen. I would have reserved it, I think. 21 MS. ERICA BARON: Okay. You're aware 22 now, I take it, even if you weren't then that Mr. 23 Blenkinsop assisted with this post-mortem examination. 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I'm aware that he 25 assisted in this now -- that he assisted in the post-

195

1 mortem exam. 2 MS. ERICA BARON: And you said in your -- 3 in your examination by Mr. Sandler that you know Mr. 4 Blenkinsop well? 5 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, he's deceased, 6 but -- 7 MS. ERICA BARON: You knew him well? 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- I knew him very -- I 9 knew him -- 10 MS. ERICA BARON: Yes. 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- I knew him very, 12 very well. We were very good friends. 13 MS. ERICA BARON: Right. And -- and 14 you'd agree with me, I assume, that Mr. Blenkinsop was a 15 very experienced pathology assistant? 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Extremely. 17 MS. ERICA BARON: And would have, over 18 the course of his career, seen many cases with animal 19 involvement? 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I can't speak to 21 that particularly, but I know that he's autopsies the 22 equivalent of a small town in Ontario, so I would imagine 23 he would have seen it at some point. I think he said to 24 me he did between twenty (20) and thirty thousand 25 (30,000) autopsies in the course of his career, so I

196

1 would imagine somewhere in there, but I can't say -- 2 MS. ERICA BARON: Okay. 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- for sure. 4 MS. ERICA BARON: Was he involved in the 5 wolf attack case that you told us about? 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't know whether he 7 was -- yeah, he was because we did -- Barry and I did the 8 necropsies on the wolves together. 9 MS. ERICA BARON: Okay. And was he 10 involved in the pit bull attack that you told us about? 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I believe he was. 12 MS. ERICA BARON: Okay. And those -- you 13 told us both of those cases occurred prior to the Sharon 14 case? 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 16 MS. ERICA BARON: And is it fair to say 17 that if Mr. Blenkinsop had been of the view that these 18 wounds were -- were dog bites, he would have expressed 19 that during the course of the post-mortem examination? 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I can't -- I can't say 21 what he would have expressed. I mean, you know, I can't 22 be in -- I can't be in his head. I -- I know if Barry 23 had an opinion about things he'd usually share them with 24 you, but that was just sort of a general opinion. I -- 25 I --

197

1 MS. ERICA BARON: Okay. 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- I don't know whether 3 he would of -- he's very receive -- he was -- he was very 4 respectful of the pathologists in his -- in his, you 5 know, in -- in his dealings with them, and he deferred to 6 the pathologists. I mean, he is a very ex -- he was a 7 very clinically talented man, but he would always defer 8 to the pathologists at the -- in the autopsy. 9 The -- the ones that I could see him 10 working, he would come, Doctor would you look at this, 11 would you care to look at this, or, you know, can I do 12 this. He was very solicitous in... 13 MS. ERICA BARON: But is it fair to say, 14 what I just you heard you say, that he would usually 15 express his opinion, if he had one? 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I -- I. 17 MR. MARK SANDLER: I think he just said 18 he doesn't know. 19 MS. ERICA BARON: Well -- 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well I -- I don't -- I 21 don't -- I didn't -- you know, I don't know enough of how 22 he worked because I'm not geographically in the building 23 so -- 24 MS. ERICA BARON: Okay. 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- I -- I don't -- I

198

1 don't whether that helps it or not, but... 2 MS. ERICA BARON: When you worked 3 together would he share his opinions with you? 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes, he would share his 5 opinions with me about -- about -- but not really about 6 case work. He wouldn't -- he wouldn't say, I think -- I 7 think that you should it this way or that way. 8 But you mean -- it was his -- it was his 9 office to run the sort of logistics of and -- and, you 10 know, I -- we -- although we were friends, if I irritated 11 him, I certainly would be told that I had stepped out of 12 line with respect to, I wasn't doing that when I (sic) 13 wanted to, or I was doing this. 14 So he -- he sort of ran the logistical 15 part of the Coroner's Office, but not the decision making 16 about -- about pathologic things, that I know of. 17 MS. ERICA BARON: Okay. Is it fair to 18 say, Dr. Wood, that you've testified from time to time at 19 trials and preliminary inquiries in criminal matters? 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 21 MS. ERICA BARON: And you're aware that 22 the Crown -- and I think you told us in your examination- 23 in-chief that the Crown has a set fee that they expect -- 24 or allow experts to charge for their attendance at those 25 sorts of hearings.

199

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I think -- when you 2 were saying "expect", I was thinking of the word 3 "occasional", but -- but yes, there's a -- there's a fee 4 that -- there's a fee guide that -- that I would -- I -- 5 I'm shown from time to time that this is the fee. But as 6 far as I know, it has never -- it doesn't include 7 forensic odontologists, but it doesn't -- it -- it hasn't 8 changed since 1992, that I know of. 9 MS. ERICA BARON: Okay. And if you could 10 turn to Tab 40 of the binder in front of you, this is 11 PFP081007. 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. 13 MS. ERICA BARON: Have you had an 14 opportunity to review this? 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I've seen it. 16 MS. ERICA BARON: And did you provide 17 this -- this document to Constable Barrett together with 18 your 1998 report? 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 20 MS. ERICA BARON: Okay. And in this 21 document you are advising Constable Barrett that if you 22 are to attend Court, you charge sixteen hundred dollars 23 ($1,600) per day. 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 25 MS. ERICA BARON: And I take it that that

200

1 isn't -- was not in accordance with the fee schedule set 2 out by the Crown attorneys at that time. 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: This is a go-away 4 letter and this is to -- this is a letter to let the 5 Crown know that bas -- basically it's setting them up -- 6 said -- again, the triad that I talked about this morning 7 in the Coroner's Office, the Crown attorney, and the 8 police is that even though -- even though I did this case 9 pro bono, if I'm going to Court it means I'm out of the - 10 - out of my practice or out of -- at that time, or out of 11 a hospital, and -- and I expect to compensated for it, 12 and please, would you, please, the three (3) of you 13 decide amongst you who is going to pay what. However, 14 I'm not -- I -- did this case pro bono, and I ended up 15 not going to Court anyway. 16 MS. ERICA BARON: Okay, so I want to talk 17 to you about that. Did you understand at the time you 18 prepared your February 1998 report that the preliminary 19 inquiry was coming up in the not too distant future? 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I -- I did not. 21 MS. ERICA BARON: Okay. And you asked 22 Constable Barrett to pass this letter along to the Crown 23 attorney? 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I presumed that 25 that's what he was going to do, that he was going to pass

201

1 it to the coroner or the Crown attorney. 2 MS. ERICA BARON: Well, in -- in fact, in 3 the second paragraph of the letter you say: 4 "Please pass this message on to the 5 Crown to make sure he or she reads and 6 understands this." 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah, this message. 8 MS. ERICA BARON: Right. So -- so you 9 understood that either the letter or the message 10 contained -- 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It says -- it says 12 right at the top, "This is not part of my report". 13 MS. ERICA BARON: Yes, I understand that. 14 I just want to understand that you expected that the 15 police would advise the Crown as to your expectations if 16 you were to attend to give testimony in this case. 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 18 MS. ERICA BARON: And did the Crown ever 19 contact you with respect to testifying at the preliminary 20 in this case? 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. 22 MS. ERICA BARON: Thank you. Those are 23 my questions. 24 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Thanks, Ms. 25 Baron.

202

1 Ms. Simpson...? 2 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. VANORA SIMPSON: 4 MS. VANORA SIMPSON: Thank you, 5 Commissioner. My name is Vanora Simpson. I'm one (1) of 6 the lawyers that acts for the Association and Defence of 7 the Wrongly Convicted. 8 I'm going to ask a few questions at the 9 start just to clarify those recommendations you made at 10 the end of your evidence this morning. 11 The first is with respect to the mediated 12 case conferences. Do envision these conferences ending 13 or resulting in a memorandum of agreement signed by all 14 of the participants, as we see in dispute resolution 15 mediations? 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I don't know 17 anything about dispute resolution, outside of my own 18 marriage so I'm not sure how that -- how that works, 19 but -- 20 MS. VANORA SIMPSON: And I promise, sir, 21 I won't ask you any questions about that. 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: All right. I -- I 23 suppose that I see it as re -- the way I envision it from 24 the mediator is the -- a mediator's report that everyone 25 would sign off on. And I'm not suggesting they

203

1 necessarily -- have to be everybody brought to the same 2 room, because I realise this is a big province and that's 3 an expensive proposition. 4 So -- but teleconferencing, email, voice 5 over internet protocol; these things can all be brought 6 to bear to bring everyone together and -- and identify 7 areas where there's agreement. Even if -- identify areas 8 where there's agreement, then those -- the areas where 9 there's disagreement can shorten the amount of time spent 10 in Court. 11 MS. VANORA SIMPSON: You note in your 12 recommendation that you would like the result to be 13 subject to a publication ban until the conclusion of the 14 case. 15 I'm wondering if you could explain that 16 concept further? 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. The Sharon case 18 is currently on the internet at someone else's website, 19 and -- and I think it's inappropriate that -- that it is. 20 And I think that the -- you know, as part 21 of the -- something that I have -- I've felt is that I've 22 been -- you know, when I go to meetings at the American 23 Academy and said, Oh, there's Dr. Wood; he's -- he's 24 messed up this case. 25 And I think that until there's actually a

204
  1  -- a finding of fact in the case, I don't think it's
  2  right for the experts to go and tell their side of the
  3  story or give their scenario in any kind of public forum
  4  because I think it's just morally wrong.
  5                 So that's why I think it should be subject
  6  to a publication ban.  I'm sure there's people in the
  7  next room who are up on their hind legs now, thinking
  8  anything publication ban.
  9                 But I think that -- you know, in the
 10  interest of privacy -- just like we protect patient
 11  privacies in public hospitals -- an issue of privacy of
 12  the individuals who are -- who are being investigated, or
 13  who are dead, and in the interests of the -- of the
 14  process, I think it would be better if everyone just did
 15  what I did which is to shut up for eleven (11) years.
 16                 MS. VANORA SIMPSON:   You referred this
 17  morning to a conversation that you had with Dr. Cairns in
 18  the autumn of 2000 about retaining Dr. Symes as a
 19  tiebreaker in the case of conflicting expert opinion.
 20                 And I guess the reason I was thinking
 21  about the publication ban is, can you see that that memo
 22  that came out of the case conference might be helpful to
 23  go to another expert to settle a tiebreaker?
 24                 I'm wondering whether that would be caught
 25  in your concept of the publication ban.

205

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No, I don't -- I -- I 2 have no problem with, you know, for internal consumption, 3 or external experts having that -- any -- any information 4 from the case conference. 5 I think that would be very useful to them 6 to -- 7 MS. VANORA SIMPSON: Okay. 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- have that. I just 9 meant that it should be -- people's privacy should be 10 protected, and -- and I think that that would be a -- a 11 useful thing. 12 Now you also said expert as a tiebreaker. 13 I believe I used the term "tiebreaker" when I was 14 referring to the Hamilton case, not the Symes case. I 15 think that was the Hamilton mediation by the Family Court 16 judge, the one who's name I can't remember, but she's 17 awesome. 18 I don't think I used "tiebreaker" for Dr. 19 Symes. 20 MS. VANORA SIMPSON: Thank you for 21 catching my error. With respect to your final 22 recommendation, you spoke of making efforts to ensure 23 that experts have the freedom to hypothesize and consider 24 various theories. 25 And you made reference to the notes of

206

1 the, sort of, speculations or hypotheses being subject to 2 discovery. And I take it that you're not opposed to the 3 disclosure of the notes per se; you just want them 4 understood by the participants in the Criminal Justice 5 System in that proper context, is that -- 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Exactly. In the 7 context that they are -- they're working notes; they're 8 not -- they're -- well, and I suppose that the -- the 9 lawyers in the case, to be fair, are thinking, Well this 10 is what he's thinking then, but maybe he's thinking that 11 at that point, but he's going to discard that later on. 12 I mean, when I have graduate students who 13 are working with me, we'll start out with one (1) 14 hypothesis, and we'll get into a situation. 15 The -- the bite mark study that we just 16 finished, the PhD, was a situation where our -- someone 17 said, What if your bite mark instrument breaks in the 18 middle of this anestiti -- when you have these pigs 19 anesthesized and you're doing a study. 20 I said, Well, if this breaks, I said I'll 21 be biting the rest of the pigs. I mean, you have to -- 22 that's a radical change in -- but I said, When you're 23 paying six hundred dollars ($600) out of your own pocket 24 for the pig, you know, you're going to get the study 25 done.

207

1 So you know, that -- that would look 2 radical, but I -- I would have done it if necessary. 3 MS. VANORA SIMPSON: Okay. 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: So you know, and that 5 looks seemingly insane to most people, but you know, 6 anything in the interest of science. 7 MS. VANORA SIMPSON: My question is this: 8 To ensure that the participants in the Criminal Justice 9 System do understand those notes in the proper context, 10 do you think it would be helpful if there were training 11 for defence counsel and Crown counsel in the area of 12 scientific literacy? 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I think it would be 14 very helpful. To under -- just to understand how -- it 15 would probably be helpful both ways for us to understand, 16 as we're doing next month at the coroner's office, with 17 respect to how -- the kinds of things we should use in 18 our reports to -- to denote degrees of certainty. 19 It should be -- it would be of benefit the 20 other way around for attorneys to understand how the 21 scientific process works. 22 MS. VANORA SIMPSON: I'd like to turn now 23 to the area of preparation of reports, and I'm wondering 24 if you could turn back to Tab 7, PFP055695, this is the 25 first report that you gave.

208

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 2 MS. VANORA SIMPSON: And we see there a 3 list of some of the post-mortem photographs that you 4 looked at. 5 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 6 MS. VANORA SIMPSON: And you also note 7 that you reviewed the slides from these two (2) 8 individual dog attacks. What I saw there does not 9 include any reference to information you received from 10 the police or looking at the scene photographs, and I 11 understood you had by that point in time. 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't think I had 13 looked at -- at the scene photographs at that point. 14 MS. VANORA SIMPSON: You agree with me 15 there's no information in this letter at all about 16 information coming in from the police? 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. And nor -- nor 18 was it -- or from the systemic standpoint -- was there at 19 that point like we have now, expectations of what must 20 be, should be and can't be in reports. This is -- at 21 this point in -- at this juncture, it was pretty much 22 whatever I decided should go in the report should go in 23 the report which, you know, may or may not be -- well, 24 obviously isn't necessarily terribly helpful. 25 But, you know, we have set up gui -- some

209

1 guidelines now about report writing and -- and that's 2 good. 3 MS. VANORA SIMPSON: Do those include a 4 recommendation to make reference to information from the 5 police that you receive that plays a role in generating 6 your conclusions? 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. Even who, like, 8 who contacted you and what the context was, yes. 9 MS. VANORA SIMPSON: Thank you very much, 10 sir. Those are my questions. 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Thanks, Ms. 13 Simpson. Mr. Wardle...? 14 DR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: It's Mr. Bernstein 15 today. 16 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Mr. 17 Bernstein. 18 19 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: 20 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Morning, Dr. Wood. 21 My name is Daniel Bernstein, and I act for a number of 22 families and caregivers who have been affected by some of 23 Dr. Smith's findings and those include Sharon's mother 24 and Jenna's mother, but my questions today will be 25 focussing on the Sharon case.

210

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 2 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And I want to 3 start with your first report, February 22nd, 1998, is 4 Tab 7 of your binder again and it -- I see it's up on the 5 screen, PFP055695. And I want to focus on, first of all, 6 on the conclusions that you reached, and I see that there 7 are really two (2) parts of this document where you 8 express a conclusion. 9 The first is on the first page, the second 10 last paragraph, you state that: 11 "The marks found on the photographs 12 listed above are completely 13 inconsistent with dog bite marks, be 14 they either domestic or wild." 15 Do you see that? 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I do. 17 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And then if you 18 turn over to the next page you see the second last full 19 paragraph from the bottom: 20 "In summary, I can say without 21 equivocation that the markings seen on 22 the deceased are not dog bite marks." 23 Do you see that? 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 25 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: So just as a

211

1 starting point, Dr. Wood, I take it you would agree with 2 me that the language that you have used in this opinion 3 expresses a very high degree of certainty. 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It -- it appears to, 5 yes. 6 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And, in fact, 7 you're not really leaving much, if any, room for doubt in 8 your opinion, is that right? 9 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It appears that way. 10 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And similarly, 11 there's no reference in this report or no discussion 12 about any other finding or observations that you made 13 from the photographs that might suggest that perhaps a 14 dog was involved. Is that fair? 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I'm sorry, could you 16 repeat that? 17 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: You don't 18 highlight anything or there's no discussion in your 19 report about anything that's inconsistent with your 20 ultimate conclusion. Is that fair? 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm -- that's fair. 22 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Okay. Now, I 23 heard you testify this morning that you didn't get a 24 chance to go to the autopsy. You'd only reviewed the 25 photographs. That's not as good, obviously, as being at

212

1 the autopsy; being able to look at the body and handle 2 the body, et cetera. 3 Would you agree with me, at least in 4 hindsight, that that's a qualification that should be 5 expressed in your opinion? 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I think it -- I 7 agree, it should be that, you know, clearly, I have 8 already said, I have to say it here, that what I have 9 done is examined post-mortem photographs. I also said 10 this morning that, obviously, the closer you are to the 11 autopsy procedure the better it is. 12 So that -- that's, yeah, that's -- that's 13 fair enough. 14 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Well, I -- 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: So I'm just trying to 16 figure out what you're driving at with respect to the 17 report. Should I -- should I have said in the report I 18 wasn't at the autopsy? 19 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Well, -- 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Would that have been 21 something that would have been useful to...? 22 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Well, I'm 23 interested in linking it to the certainty of your 24 conclusions. If you don't have the best evidence 25 available when you -- when you're preparing your opinion,

213

1 you didn't have a chance to go to the autopsy on the one 2 (1) hand and on the other hand, you have expressed your 3 conclusion as a virtual certainty. 4 Shouldn't the fact that you've only 5 reviewed photos somehow cause you to express a little 6 more doubt or leave a little more room for error in your 7 -- in your conclusion? 8 And I'm thinking, Dr. Wood, from the 9 perspective of -- of a consumer of this report, the 10 Criminal Justice System. They wouldn't necessarily 11 appreciate from reading your report that, you know, there 12 was some room for error because you hadn't been at the 13 autopsy, correct? 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, they could assume 15 that, but they could also call me or assume that -- I 16 mean I'd assume it was going to trial at some point, and 17 they'd have a chance to cross-examine me so I don't know 18 whether that's helpful or not but...? 19 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: We'd also seen a 20 memo from one (1) of the Crowns that you were taken to 21 earlier -- 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 23 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: -- that referred 24 to the Regional Coroner at the time, Dr. Bechard, 25 mentioning that he was having discussions about retaining

214

1 you to nip the defence theory in the bud, do you recall 2 that? 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I recall seeing it. I 4 don't know -- I haven't got it in front of me. Do you 5 have the reference number for that? 6 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: I do if you'd like 7 it. 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: You know what? I've 9 seen it. I remember the "nip in the bud," particularly - 10 - 11 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: The "nip in the 12 bud" -- 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- as being -- as being 14 particularly unfortunate phrasing in this situation. 15 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: That seems to 16 suggest to a layperson that -- that you're going to be 17 brought on to give a particular opinion going in a 18 certain direction, sort of, from the outset -- 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 20 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: -- before you've 21 even had a chance to review any of the materials and -- 22 and really I -- I say this as a segue to a question about 23 what sort of pressure, as an expert, you might feel, 24 particularly by the Crown or the police, to, I guess, 25 number 1) support their theories and number 2) express

215

1 your opinions with a high degree of confidence? Is that 2 a factor, Dr. Wood? 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No, it's not and first 4 of all, I've never actually met, to my knowledge, Dr. 5 Bechard. I mean, I may have seen him at a coroner's 6 course. That's part 1 so I've never met Dr. Bechard. 7 He must have seen one (1) of my 8 presentations, and I guess it was -- at least, it managed 9 to dazzle him or bamboozle him with imagery, but I -- I 10 don't really care what the police think. This sounds 11 terrible but you -- you hold it in your mind and you hold 12 it out there and -- and you just sort of -- you pay 13 attention to it, but you don't pay attention to it. 14 I'm not there to work for the police. 15 I work for -- I work for one (1) person in 16 this case and that's Sharon, you know? And if it -- and 17 -- and that's who I see myself working for. I don't see 18 myself as a -- as a police expert in any way. I work for 19 the coroner and it's my understanding -- and I've worked 20 in -- in places where the coroner system is or the death 21 investigation is run by the police and it doesn't work. 22 So I guess -- the perspective I can bring 23 is that -- is that I do not see myself as having to nip 24 anything in the bud. 25 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Your evidence this

216

1 morning was that before you wrote your first report, you 2 had a consultation with Constable Barrett; do you recall 3 that? 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Oh, he -- he came to my 5 office and asked me is this a dog bite or not? 6 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And he brought you 7 some photographs? 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 9 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Are you able to 10 recall approximately how many photographs you reviewed? 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't remember. 12 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Do you think it 13 would have been less than you had reviewed before 14 preparing your report or you don't know? 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I'm sorry. Could it be 16 less than I reviewed when I was preparing my report 17 because I numbered them, so, it would have to be either 18 equal to or greater than the number that I reviewed in 19 the report. Are you with me? 20 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: I'm not sure I am. 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I've listed -- I've 22 listed photographs by number. I don't know how many of 23 these D, E's, F's, and G's add up to. 24 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: I count thirty- 25 four (34) and my question is just really when you met

217

1 with Dr. Bechard, do you think you reviewed -- 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I didn't meet with Dr. 3 Bechard. 4 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Pardon me, when 5 you met with Constable Barrett, do you think you reviewed 6 thirty-four (34) photographs or do you think it was 7 somewhat less or somewhat more or can you recall? 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, it -- it couldn't 9 have been less because I reviewed the photographs. So it 10 would have had to have been thirty-four (34) or greater 11 but I don't remember it being, like, in -- as it came out 12 later when the -- when the scene photographs came as many 13 -- I could be wrong on this -- but hundreds so I don't 14 know. But it had to be, at least, thirty-four (34) I 15 would -- because that's the ones that I looked at, I 16 would think. 17 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Do -- do you have 18 any recollection as to approximately how much time you 19 spent reviewing those photographs at the time that you 20 were consulted by Constable Barrett? 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't. 22 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: No recollection at 23 all? Would it have been hours? Did you do it with him 24 present? Did you just look at some and -- and then say 25 something to him at the time or did you go back and spend

218

1 a night or a day? 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't recall how -- 3 how long I -- I looked at them. I -- I believe he left 4 them in my possession so, you know, I might have -- you 5 know, like with an identification often what I'll do is - 6 - which is a forensic report is I will give a verbal -- 7 give a verbal opinion and then -- and then I'll do the 8 report afterwards. So you might give a verbal opinion 9 and then -- and then go and write out a more fulsome 10 report. 11 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Turning back to 12 the first page of your February '98 report, you refer, I 13 take it, -- it's the second paragraph that talks about 14 reviewing approximately a hundred and thirty-five (135) 15 slides. Do you see that? 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 17 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Is that your 18 attempt to characterize, what I would call, the research 19 that you had undertaken prior to preparing your report? 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No, I mean, I'm looking 21 for areas of commonality. I mean, fatal dog attacks are 22 not common. So, I mean, I'm looking at my experience and 23 admittedly this is 19 -- 1998, and I've been on the job 24 from -- since February 1992. I was not Board Certified 25 at this time. So, I mean, obviously, I don't have as

219

1 much experience as I have now. 2 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Well, I guess what 3 my question is really focussed at is, am I to understand 4 that what you've described in that paragraph is the 5 extent of the materials, or the literature, or the 6 research that you had looked at specifically prior to 7 preparing your report? 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No, I would have read 9 some -- I would have read articles on dog attacks for the 10 -- for these cases too -- for the pit bull and the wolf 11 attack. It's not every day you have a wolf attack. So, 12 you know, it's, in fact, a fatal wolf attack's extremely 13 rare. 14 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Okay, let's -- 15 let's move forward to the basis that you set out for your 16 conclusion in this report. And I count five (5) of them, 17 starting with the last paragraph on the first page. And 18 you see that you -- you say: 19 "The markings are the wrong shape to be 20 dog bite marks. The markings on the 21 deceased are linear incisions rather 22 than conical punctures which are 23 typical of dog bite marks." 24 Do you see that? 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm.

220

1 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Dr. Ferris in, his 2 September 16th, '98 report -- and I'll give you the PFP, 3 but I don't think you need to turn it up. It -- it's Tab 4 10 of your binder, it's PFP 080577. 5 What I'm interested in, from this report, 6 is his quote from Bernard Knight's text on forensic 7 pathology regarding the meaning of incised wounds. 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 9 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: It's on the second 10 page of that document. 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Sorry, Tab 10, second 12 page, you said PFP080577? 13 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: That's right. 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: And you're directing me 15 to Bernard Knight's -- 16 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: The top paragraph. 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Okay. 18 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And do you see 19 that there's a quote from him? 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 21 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: He describes 22 incised wounds as: 23 "Clean divisions of the skin and the 24 underlying tissue so that the margins 25 are almost free from any damages.

221

1 Microscopically, there is always a 2 narrow zone of injury, but this is 3 minimal compared to the tissue 4 destruction caused by blunt injury." 5 Do you see that? 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 7 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Do you agree with 8 that definition of an incised wound? 9 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I -- I've never 10 read this definition of an incised wound. There's 11 another definition that's in another textbook that I 12 used: 13 "Clean division of skin almost free 14 from any damage." 15 I'm not an expert. I'm not a forensic 16 pathologist, but I mean: 17 "Narrow zone of injury minimal compared 18 with the tissue destruction caused by 19 blunt injury." 20 You'd have to ask a forensic pathologist 21 that. 22 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Well, if that's 23 the case, Dr. Wood, why are you opining in this paragraph 24 that I've taken you to in your report that the markings 25 on the deceased are linear incisions rather than conical

222

1 punctures if you're not qualified to -- 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, the lin -- the -- 3 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: -- to make that 4 opinion. 5 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- linearity refers to 6 the fact that I took them to all be single straight 7 lines. Not the -- not the -- not the margin, but the 8 fact that -- if you look in one of those photographs, 9 you'll see a stylet and it actually says stylet right on 10 it. It's a silver stylet. We use stylets in -- well, 11 pathologists use stylets to show entrance and exit 12 wounds. And -- and the stylet in the one (1) case in one 13 (1) picture, actually of the wounds on Sharon's arm, is 14 seen going passing straight through. 15 Now to me that's inconsistent with dog 16 teeth, and the reason it's inconsistent with dog teeth is 17 because dog teeth overlap. Now I can't describe this to 18 you, but they -- they are -- have a side-to-side position 19 as opposed to an end-on position. So I would expect in 20 dog teeth, there would be not a single in -- single 21 linearity. That's what I mean by linearity. 22 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: But -- but if I'm 23 focussing on the word incision, and I take it from what 24 you're telling me is you're not using that term in a 25 specific --

223

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I'm not using it -- 2 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: -- in a specific 3 scientific way because you're not an expert on what the 4 hallmarks of what might be called an incision are. 5 Is that fair? 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I'm saying that I'm 7 using it in my context. I'm not using the Bernard Knight 8 version of what I take to be incisions. 9 You have to remember, I actually make 10 incisions on a daily basis in people, so I do know what 11 an incision is. 12 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Well, did you have 13 knowledge at the time, Dr. Wood, that a characteristic of 14 an incision is that there's relatively little damage 15 surrounding the injury. Is that something that you knew 16 and understood in 1998/1999? That's really what I'm 17 focussing on. 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That there's very 19 little damage around an incision? 20 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Correct, compared 21 to a blunt or puncture mark. 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, you know, this is 23 -- I know what an -- an incision that I would make, 24 hopefully, would have not a lot of peripheral damage 25 around it, you know, from an inci -- an implement that I

224

1 would use in my daily surgical practice. 2 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Well, let me ask 3 you this question. In 1998 and 1999, if you had seen 4 wounds that were surrounded by large amounts of bruising, 5 would that mean anything to you in terms of a 6 classification as to whether it was an incised wound; a 7 wound caused by a sharp instrument; or whether it was a 8 wound caused by something duller? 9 DR. ROBERT WOOD: You know, it wouldn't, 10 and I'll tell you why. Because the other part of this, 11 and this came out of the PhD student's thesis too, is 12 that I had no information on how long this -- this child 13 had layed in any particular position. 14 There were, by, I guess, some people's 15 count, thirty-two (32) pun -- thirty-two (32) of these 16 punctures, which I guess are dog teeth. We're all 17 accepting that now. 18 And that there's -- in any -- anytime you 19 have that number of injuries, there's going to be a large 20 amount of hemorrhage in the connective tissue. And -- 21 and if there's -- if someone is laying on one (1) side, 22 you'll have dependent injuries. 23 So you'll have blood pooling in -- in 24 areas where they're laying, even after they reach the 25 Coroner's Office, so I don't know whether I could say

225

1 that you could use bruising, or the apparent bruising, to 2 -- to say for sure whether something was an incised wound 3 or a puncture mark. 4 If Dr. Ferris says that, that's his 5 opinion and he's free to hold it. 6 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Well, I'm just 7 focussing on what your state of knowledge was at the 8 time, and what I want to know is whether you thought that 9 that was potentially relevant? 10 I hear what you're saying about the fact 11 that there might be other causes of large amounts of 12 bruis -- bruising surrounding wounds, but did you see 13 that that might -- might be indicative of whether it was 14 an incised wound, or a blunt puncture, or did you not 15 know one (1) way or another? 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I think that that many 17 injuries in the arm, I think it's -- I think it -- the 18 way I thought -- how could I -- how did you think -- 19 disregard everything you've learned in the last ten (10) 20 years, but -- but at the time, I'm -- I think that I 21 could appreciate that this is a heavily macerated arm. 22 In other words, it was -- been through the 23 wringer, and -- and so there's a lot of hemorrhage every 24 where. 25 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: So I take it you

226

1 didn't feel it was important at the time to raise that 2 issue in the report, even if you thought there were other 3 possible explanations for it? Is that fair? 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, you know, I knew 5 that this case was looked at by forensic pathologists, so 6 I -- I don't see that as my job. 7 My job was, is it dog or not dog? And -- 8 and that's where -- that's where it is. And -- and the 9 forensic pathologist's job is to determine means, manner, 10 cause of death, and also -- you know, he's the one who's 11 looking at the injuries in this case at autopsy very 12 close up; not me. 13 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: But you don't 14 express any qualifications in your opinion about your 15 ability to comment on certain types of wounds, do you? 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Do I offer any kind -- 17 no, I didn't. 18 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Okay. Is it also 19 your understanding that injuries from dog bites could 20 result in irregular sizes and shapes due to crushing and 21 tearing of the underlying tissues and muscles? Is that 22 something that you understood? 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I'm sorry. That dog 24 bites can cause irregular -- you know, yeah. You can 25 have irregular bites, but it's still where -- to me,

227

1 where are those -- I should have seen more of the ant -- 2 of the anterior of the front teeth of the dogs. 3 You know, there was a couple pictures 4 where you could almost buy it, but there was -- it just - 5 - I thought there should be more of those small teeth 6 present. 7 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Let's move on, 8 then, and I'm -- I'm going to get to that. 9 If you turn the page on your report, the 10 top paragraph, this is what I call Basis Number II. You 11 say: 12 "The markings were the wrong size to be 13 dog bite markings. A dog bite should 14 be in the range of two and a half (2- 15 1/2) to five (5) centimetre inter 16 canine width, and most of these are 17 not." 18 Stopping there, the language "most of 19 these are not", did you see some marks, or any marks, 20 that you thought were in that appropriate range? 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Here's the problem. 22 You've got thirty-two (32) marks, and if you measure the 23 distance between any thirty-two (32) marks, you're going 24 to find some that fit in the two point five (2.5) to five 25 point (5.) centimetre range.

228

1 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: So doesn't that 2 leave open the possibility then? 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Just -- you know, 4 clearly -- Mr. Bernstein, clearly I was wrong in my 5 interpretation of -- of these as dog bites. 6 I mean, I -- I freely admit that. When I 7 had enough evidence from the second autopsy, obviously, I 8 changed my mind. I was wrong. This is how I perceived 9 it at the time. 10 And, you know, that's just -- that's the - 11 - I mean you can release the hounds, but that is pretty 12 much the way I saw it. 13 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: No, that's fair 14 enough. I just wanted to explore these with you, Doctor, 15 because I -- Mr. Sandler didn't go into some of these -- 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 17 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: -- points in -- 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's fine. 19 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: -- great detail. 20 Turning to number -- what I call number 4, the third 21 paragraph down, you say: 22 "The dog bite marks I have seen, and I 23 suspect boast -- most dog bites 24 generally occur on the limbs, while 25 seizes are directed at the head and

229

1 neck and shoulder girdle." 2 Do you see that? 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. 4 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And you had given 5 some evidence on that this mo -- this morning. 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 7 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And you spoke a 8 little bit about research into this issue. I'm wondering 9 if you can turn up -- first of all, Mr. Registrar, it's 10 PFP170446, and this would have been added to your binder 11 at the break, probably the last tab. 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: So would that be my 13 binder, Tab 43? No, it wasn't. 14 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: 43. 15 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: What's the 16 document, Mr. Bernstein? 17 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: It's -- 18 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: The 19 occurrence report? 20 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: That's right. 21 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Do you have 22 a Tab 43, Dr. Wood? 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I have a Tab 43, which 24 is the -- which is 170446. 25 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Yes.

230

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Okay. 2 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: That's the 3 document. 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 5 6 CONTINUED BY MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: 7 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Have you had a 8 chance to look at this document? 9 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I would think so 10 because I wrote it. 11 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: But I mean 12 recently? 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No, I haven't looked at 14 it recently, actually. 15 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: To me, and you can 16 correct me if I'm wrong, this appears to be what I would 17 call a unabridged version of your second report. It 18 includes everything that we've seen in your second 19 report, but it also has a list of all the photos that you 20 reviewed. It looks like it has your comments about the 21 significance of the photos. 22 And what I'm really interested in is it 23 also appears to have a list of the references, or the 24 materials, or the -- the journal articles that you've 25 reviewed.

231

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I think it doesn't -- 2 actually, you're -- the reference list actually refers 3 to, which I have on my laptop here, a reference manager 4 which I had, but this is -- I think is the -- as the 5 process matured past the -- past the -- the criminal 6 proceedings and -- and I was preparing for something 7 altogether different, and some of these I would have had 8 -- I mean these -- this is a reference of -- a searchable 9 reference database and so that I can say punch in the 10 word "scalp" and it'll pull out all the articles that 11 have "scalp". 12 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: So it refers to a 13 number of articles; I think the abstract, the title, the 14 source, the abstract in a number of cases, and then it 15 looks like what appear to be your comments. 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: There -- yes. 17 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Do you see that 18 flipping it through it? 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes, I can. 20 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And do you know 21 when you conducted this search and -- and got your hands 22 on these materials? 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't. I actually 24 know that I did a lot of this when I was preparing for my 25 board exams in 2003, for not just dog bites, but also

232

1 child abuse, bite marks, identification, the nomenclature 2 systems, and I have all of -- I don't think I have them 3 here, but I can produce them, for all the different 4 things that I thought I was going to be examined on on my 5 col -- at my board exams, so I prepared a list of all the 6 stuff I had to know for my board exam. 7 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Given that -- that 8 all this is -- is in a document that looks -- that 9 contains everything that's in your second opinion, is it 10 possible, is it probable, that this -- these were 11 materials that you had reviewed before you finalized your 12 second opinion? 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't know. 14 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: It's possible? 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It's possible, I 16 suppose. 17 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Okay. I -- I want 18 to turn to some of these materials. 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Just bear with me 24 a moment. The first is at page 70 of this document, and 25 the PFP number at the top is 170515. Mr. Registrar, I'm

233

1 not sure how easily you can pull it up based on what I 2 just told you, but the number 70 is at the bottom. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Sorry, I 7 have a page 70 at the bottom with the same PFP number of 8 the document itself at the top, 170446. What are you 9 looking for, what -- 10 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: It's -- it's a 11 page and the very last line says, "Reference journal 12 article", page -- 13 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Reference 14 type journal article? 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: 17 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: In fact, the 18 bottom journal article that's referenced is authored by 19 someone named Jones. 20 I think it's on the screen now. Do you 21 see that? You have that there? 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I have -- I have it 23 here and there as well. 24 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Okay. And if you 25 refer to the notes section, you'll see it says:

234

1 "Dog bites to the face usually occur on 2 lips, nose, and cheek. Perforating 3 ocular injuries are rare. Doberman 4 Pincher. 5 And then below that: 6 "Bitten about the face, scalp, with 7 full thickness scalp laceration and 8 extensive exposure of the calvarium." 9 And that -- that's the dome of the skull, 10 right? 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah, yeah. 12 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Okay. And I've 13 got five (5) of these that I want to take you through, 14 just by way of an -- 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Before we go there you 16 might want to flip up to the one (1) just above that 17 because there's a number of -- here that says that the 18 twelve (12) of sixteen (16) were bit on the face. 19 So that's -- that's one (1) -- I mean, 20 you're gonna -- I mean, I presume you're gonna 21 selectively pull out ones that are going to -- to talk 22 about scalp, which is fine, but just realize we -- if you 23 pull out five (5) there might be eighty (80) articles 24 here. 25 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Fair enough. If I

235

1 can move on the -- page 88 of this document. You see at 2 the -- this is at the bottom there's a -- an article 3 entitled, "Severe Dog Bites in Children." 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 5 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And I believe this 6 is referring to a review from large city hospitals in 7 Washington state. 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 9 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And if you turn 10 the page over... 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I go to the next page - 12 - page 89 you mean? 13 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Yeah. 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. 15 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: There -- there's a 16 discussion in that first paragraph there, which is the 17 abstract, about midway through that paragraph it refers 18 to: 19 "Injuries to the face, head, and neck 20 area were most common in 82 percent." 21 And this is discussing from the dog 22 attacks on children that have been reviewed. 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Okay. We're on page 24 89, now, sir. I may... 25 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: You see that

236

1 there's a red arrow on the screen -- 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes, injuries to the 3 face, head and neck were -- okay, sorry, thank you. 4 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And then skipping 5 down one (1) sentence: 6 "Severe dog bites in children occur 7 most frequently in those younger than 8 five (5) years old and involve the head 9 and the neck." 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 11 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: You see that? 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 13 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And then notes 14 below that; that's your section, right? 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 16 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And then the 17 fourth note down: 18 "All three (3) children who died had 19 multiple wounds with significant 20 hemorrhage and intracranial trauma." 21 Do you -- 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 23 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: -- see that? 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 25 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And then it says:

237

1 "Soft tissue avulsion was a frequent 2 finding including scalp, external ear, 3 and facial tissue. 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 5 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: What does avulsion 6 mean, Dr. Wood? 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Avulsion, it means the 8 tearing away. 9 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Okay. And below 10 that: 11 "Eight (8) had skull fractures." 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 13 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Do you see that? 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I do. 15 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And the last point 16 that you make under the note section: 17 "Quotes from other authors indicate a 18 high degree of head and neck injuries 19 in other papers." 20 Do you see -- 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 22 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: -- that? 23 Okay. And -- and there are -- I put to 24 you Dr. Wood that I'm not just taking a -- an 25 unrepresentative sample. I'd suggest to you and anyone

238

1 who wants to look through this very large number of doc - 2 - of -- of research articles that there is a lot of 3 discussion in the literature about children being 4 attacked in the face, in the head, in -- in the neck, and 5 in the upper limbs, and having pieces of the scalp torn 6 away, lacerated, that sort of thing. 7 Would you agree with that? 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: There are -- there are 9 a number of references in here that have that finding as 10 well. But then bear in mind that the median age of these 11 -- and I've actually looked at this; you have a copy of 12 this article, I saw it last night -- that the, I believe 13 all these children were the -- under the age of five (5) 14 and most were under the age of three and half (3 1/2). 15 And I've seen cases of attacks in -- or 16 not attacks but a dog picked up a -- an infant and 17 perforated a skull, but what I didn't find here was 18 anybody the age -- and I don't -- I haven't looked 19 through this recently, Mr. Commissioner -- but anyone of 20 the age of seven and half (7 1/2) years that had had a 21 perforation of the skull. 22 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And is it on that 23 basis, Dr. Wood that you didn't feel it was important to 24 include any discussion about this literature in your 25 first report?

239

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't understand that 2 question. I don't know whether I can even answer that 3 question. That's -- 4 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Well, let me put 5 it a different way. Let me back up. 6 Were you aware of any of this literature 7 at the time you prepared your first report? 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I'm sure I was aware of 9 some of the literature. I don't know what -- 10 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Okay. 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- I don't -- I don't 12 know exactly what literature. It doesn't track when you 13 add an -- an article. I mean, obviously, I could have 14 known anything that was -- that was -- that was published 15 in 1998 and onwards. 16 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Everything I had 17 taken you to, and in fact -- 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Back before '98 -- 19 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: -- the bulk of 20 this was before 1998, so it would have been readily 21 available to you, correct? 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, not readily 23 available to me. I -- I happen to have a -- a very 24 talented librarian who's able to get just about anything 25 I want; like Journal of the Kentucky Medical Association

240

1 is not really a hot medical journal. So, I mean, I can, 2 you know, I can get material if I have to get it. 3 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And you could have 4 gotten all of this material back in 1998, to the extent 5 that it was published by then, is that fair? 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I could have got all 7 the material in -- back in 1998, but it's a fairly 8 herculean effort to do that. 9 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Okay. 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It is. 11 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: But you -- but you 12 were aware of -- of some of the information that we just 13 went through and that that was in the literature. 14 And my question is, why didn't you feel it 15 was important to include a discussion of that in your 16 report, rather than just reach the conclusion that it's 17 an unusual feature you -- or you suspect that most dog 18 bites generally occur in the limbs, rather than the head, 19 neck, and shoulder girdle? 20 Why isn't there a discussion in this 21 report about what you knew at the time? 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I'm sorry, what I knew 23 at the time? Are you saying that I knew this at the 24 time? 25 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Well, let me back

241

1 up because then I misunderstood. I thought you told me 2 that at the time you wrote this report, you were aware of 3 some of the literature, to the effect, that I just took 4 you to, is that -- 5 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I was -- I was aware 6 there was dog bite literature and -- and dog bite attacks 7 on children. There's some -- there was obviously a body 8 -- there is a body of literature on everything. 9 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Okay. At the time 10 you wrote this report, were you aware that there was 11 literature out there suggesting that children can have 12 suffered injuries to the scalp, to the face, to the neck, 13 to the shoulder girdle from dog attacks? Were you aware 14 of that at the time that you wrote this? 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I was aware this 16 literature was there, but my take on the literature at 17 the time was that most attacks to children occur in the 18 face, because children face a dog; to a dog, that's a 19 challenge. You don't look in a dog's eyes. You don't -- 20 that, to a dog, is seen as a challenge, and so when a -- 21 most of the attacks occur there. 22 And then obviously, obviously most dog 23 bites, now this an exceptional case because of the fatal 24 -- this is a fatal injury, but most dog bites are going 25 to occur on the limbs -- that was my personal experience

242

1 and -- and on the hands -- because that's where you'd 2 expect the defensive injuries to come from. 3 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Looking back, Dr. 4 Wood, do you think it would have been prudent for you to 5 have included some sort of a discussion about what you 6 did know at the time about the literature, even -- you 7 don't mention anything in this report about attacks to 8 the face, do you? 9 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. No. 10 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Do you think it 11 would have been prudent to include a discussion about 12 that? 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mr. Bernstein, I just 14 rep -- did the report on the photographs that I was 15 given. You know, I didn't examine a child. This is the 16 report that I generated. It's clearly -- it's clearly 17 the report is -- is wrong, and for that I apologize, but 18 I don't see it as a -- you know, this is the take I had 19 on it. 20 It -- my observations that I made from 21 those photographs led me in a certain direction. 22 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: I appreciate that, 23 Doctor. 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I mean, I could just as 25 easily have another hundred (100) articles on incised

243

1 wounds and -- and stab marks with scissors, and where do 2 you stop? Where do I stop as an expert? 3 I'm asked is it a dog or not a dog, and -- 4 you know, and then we talk about incised wounds. Do I 5 then do another literature search on five hundred (500) 6 articles of incise? 7 I mean you ha -- you -- this is a -- you 8 know, the -- there is -- it's not like it's a timed 9 element, but you do have a -- you know, you do have a 10 place where you just, you know, it doesn't strike you 11 that it's a dog attack; it's -- it doesn't strike you as 12 a dog attack. 13 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: But to be fair, 14 Dr. Wood, your opinion goes further than that. Your 15 opinion is unequivocal and it -- 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I think I just said 17 it's not a dog attack, so I mean that's -- I -- I mean 18 it's unequivocal at that time, and as I said before, 19 hindsight's great, it's wonderful. 20 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: But -- but it's 21 really the methodology that I'm getting at. If you're 22 aware of some possible basis for a different opinion or 23 some literature out there that doesn't support what 24 you're saying, from a matter -- you know, from a systemic 25 perspective and a matter of methodology, do you think

244

1 it's best practice to include a discussion about that in 2 your report, rather than just -- 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: But then you're ask -- 4 you're antis -- you're asking me to anticipate every 5 other possibility, or at least anticipate other 6 possibilities instead -- and then the rep -- the whole 7 system's going to bog down because I'll be doing -- you 8 know, I'll be doing nothing but writing a report, so I -- 9 I don't see how I can accommodate that in a -- you know, 10 I mean, unless there's some mechanism that that can be 11 accommodated in. 12 This is a lot of work to maintain and when 13 I study for my board exams, this -- assembling this and 14 studying for my board exams is a two (2) year process. 15 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Turn up your 16 second report, Dr. Wood, which is PFP102147, Tab 13, of 17 your binder. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. Which page 22 would you like, Mr. Bernstein? 23 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: The second page of 24 the document which really is the beginning of your 25 narrative, do you see that?

245

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It says PFP102147. 2 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: You might be 3 working from a different version, but -- 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Okay, I'm sorry. 5 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: -- if you look on 6 the screen -- 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Okay. 8 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: -- that's the 9 right page. Do you see that? 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: General information -- 11 general information and sequence of events? 12 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Yeah. And if you 13 go to the third paragraph down, you see about midway 14 through, you write: 15 "At the time of the review of the 16 entire case photographs I remained 17 unconvinced that as single dog could 18 inflict a large number of injuries to 19 this child with no attempt by the child 20 to defend herself. I could see no 21 defensive type postures." 22 Just stopping there, it's a general 23 question and one that you can help me on. 24 In your experience, and maybe you can't 25 answer this, would you have expected to -- to see

246

1 defensive type postures in the case of any attack as 2 severe as the one on Sharon, whether it was caused by a 3 person with a weapon or -- or an animal? 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I'm not a 5 pathologist but I do remember the case of the one (1) dog 6 attack where the dog had actually torn between the 7 fingers of the individual involved, and had actually 8 ripped the flesh out between the fingers and you could 9 see right where the cuspid teeth, the canine teeth, had 10 actually torn, and actually I think they had eaten the 11 fingers off. 12 So, I mean, that's a classic defence 13 injury of...so, yeah, I mean, I suppose that it's -- I 14 would expect to have seen defensive injuries and I didn't 15 see them. I remember seeing the photographs of her 16 hands, and I didn't see those defence injuries. 17 And I just think that if you're able to, 18 you're going to put your hands up. That's just -- that's 19 not the forensic odontologist; that's just a person who's 20 been bit four times by dogs. 21 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: At the time you 22 wrote the statement though, did you -- did you give any 23 consideration to whether if it was some other source, if 24 the injuries were from some other source like a violent 25 attack by a person, whether you would have also expected

247

1 to see defensive injuries? 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I didn't offer that 3 opinion up as to -- you mean, whether there -- I guess 4 the alternate hypothesis or the correct hypothesis, 5 whatever, is that there was some kind of stabbing and 6 whether someone put their hands up to wield off someone 7 who's attacking them with a knife? 8 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Well, the way I 9 read this -- this paragraph, you are suggesting that 10 you're -- you remain unconvinced that a single dog could 11 have done it because you don't see any defensive type 12 injuries. 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 14 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And that suggests 15 to me that the flip side of that is that there might be 16 other circumstances which would be more likely because in 17 those circumstances, there wouldn't be defensive type 18 injuries. That might be a bad question. I'm not sure if 19 you follow me, Dr. Wood. 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't follow -- I 21 don't follow you completely but... 22 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Okay. Well, I am 23 going to move on. The next sentence in that paragraph: 24 "Further the attack appeared to have 25 occurred in one (1) geographic

248

1 location, and there was a very large 2 piece of scalp torn or cut from the 3 child's skull." 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 5 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: And you're 6 suggesting that, I take it from reading this, that that's 7 one (1) factor that led you to continue to be unconvinced 8 that this was caused by a single dog, is that right? 9 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. And it's my 10 understanding that Dr. Milroy has had cases where large 11 of chunks of scalp had been removed but that wasn't my 12 experience nor could I -- in the literature -- I don't 13 think there's a -- there was scalp lacerations. 14 But this is a very large piece of scalp, 15 and it struck me that that was -- that was odd. 16 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Just 17 give me a moment. 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: Mr. Commissioner, 23 this might be a convenient time for a break. I think I 24 only have a couple of minutes left. 25 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Okay. We

249

1 will rise now until 3:30. 2 3 --- Upon recessing at 3:14 p.m. 4 --- Upon resuming at 3:31 p.m. 5 6 THE REGISTRAR: All rise. Please be 7 seated. COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Mr. 8 Bernstein...? 9 MR. DANIEL BERNSTEIN: I am actually done 10 with my questions, Mr. Commissioner. Dr. Wood, thank you 11 very much. 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Thank you, Mr. 13 Bernstein. 14 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Thanks, Mr. 15 Bernstein. 16 Ms. Mackay...? 17 18 (BRIEF PAUSE) 19 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION MS. HEATHER MACKAY: 21 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: Good afternoon, Dr. 22 Wood. My name's Heather Mackay. I'm one (1) of the 23 lawyers representing the Province of Ontario in this 24 matter. 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Okay.

250

1 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: In-chief this 2 morning you testified that you preferred testifying for 3 the defence, and I just wanted to ask you why that is. 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I actually prefer to 5 testify for the defence because I just feel more loved 6 when I testify for the defence. I feel more appreciated 7 and usually, I have my choice of -- of if I'm going to 8 appear, when I appear. It's an altogether more pleasant 9 experience for me. 10 I -- I apologize if you're a Crown 11 attorney or to the Crown attorneys but it's just been my 12 experience that if I work for the defence, it's -- it's a 13 lot less stress and it's a lot less -- a lot less of a 14 problem. 15 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: And just to pick up 16 on what you said, how is it that they make you feel more 17 appreciated? 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, when you're asked 19 to -- when you -- when you're asked -- well, someone -- 20 as someone who's a dentist -- perhaps your dentist run 21 off -- run their offices late -- but our average wait 22 time is six (6) minutes at our hospital, and I -- I like 23 to run on time, and I -- I appreciate when someone 24 respects one's time. 25 Now, I understand that the -- the Courts

251

1 and the Crowns are extremely busy, but I also understand 2 the defence are extremely busy too. But, you know, I've 3 had many experiences with Crowns where I've actually had 4 to go to distant communities. 5 One (1) I can think of is Kenora where I 6 actually had to fly up; miss two (2) days of seeing my 7 patients which is what I care most about. And I was 8 never actually called, and I would think that the Crown 9 and the defence could get together and sort it out before 10 I get there; all the way up to Kenora and then never 11 appear. 12 That just doesn't seem to happen with the 13 defence. Defence seems to appreciate your time more, and 14 I don't know whether that's a function of busyness or 15 what have you, even -- even defence cases where the cases 16 are done without a fee 'cause I've had several. 17 The case I talked about this morning where 18 we had the case conference with the judge, that was a pro 19 bono case, child abuse case, and the -- and the defence, 20 they're just, I don't know... 21 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: Is there any other 22 reasons or is that just because you -- you feel more 23 appreciated by the defence that you prefer to testify for 24 them? 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I think that's enough.

252

1 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: Okay. 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I think so. I don't 3 think -- I haven't met a Crown attorney who's been nasty. 4 I do know that the person who quit my job before me quit 5 the day after the Crown told them that if he didn't come 6 to a court appearance -- when he told them he had nothing 7 to say and had not written a report -- told him if he 8 didn't come, he would be transported up in a police car 9 and so he did come. He wasn't used, and he quit that 10 day. 11 So that was -- and he was a tremendously 12 talented fellow and -- and he's been forever lost to the 13 Coroner's System because -- 14 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: Because of that 15 situation? 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- because of that 17 situation. 18 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: Now, you also 19 expressed frustration this morning about a case in which 20 you had additional, or you felt you had additional, 21 relevant evidence to give other than what the Crown 22 wanted you to testify about and I believe it's a case 23 about a bite mark -- 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 25 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: -- and what the

253

1 import of that bite mark might be. 2 And you would consider that within your 3 expertise as an odontologist to opine on that? 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I think that it was 5 important information that needed to come out. I'm not a 6 -- I'm not a scene recreationist but I think that if 7 there was an avenue where I could have talked to the 8 defence -- and you know, I think now that I'm older and 9 ornerier, I would have just probably phoned Mr. Lockyer 10 anyway and said, This is what I think you should know. 11 But back then when -- and there's no 12 guidance and no training at that time to tell us that, 13 you know, Here's what you can do, here's what you can't 14 do, with respect to the quote/unquote "other side" I 15 think that would be a useful thing to have, some guidance 16 saying, Look, you're free to talk to defence because now 17 I just do it anyway. 18 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: And so you don't 19 feel limited in providing information only on matters of 20 odontology? 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I mean you have 22 to understand that that's a broad field. Odontology is 23 bite marks. We get involved a lot in child abuse cases 24 because 50 percent of child abuse cases are visible -- 25 there's visible markings in the head and neck according

254

1 to studies and so, you know, we're supposed to be attuned 2 to that as -- as practitioners. As healthcare givers, 3 we're supposed to be attuned to that. 4 And it goes to age, sex, race 5 determination and some of the other things outlined this 6 morning but not particularly that, but I think it was -- 7 that was a particular instance where I really had 8 something useful that would have helped the defence, but 9 I was completely flummoxed as to how to do it. 10 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: You'd agree with me 11 that it isn't within your area of expertise to opine on 12 the voracity of the accused's version of events? 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It's not -- it's not -- 14 could you just run that by? I'm just -- I'm starting to 15 weaken here, so if you could just run it by me again. 16 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: It's not within your 17 area of expertise to opine on the veracity of an 18 accused's versions of events. 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: On the -- on the 20 truthfulness of the -- 21 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: That's right. 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- of an accused -- no, 23 I -- 24 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: No. 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- it's not up for --

255

1 for me to comment on the -- whatever alternate hypotheses 2 are put forward. 3 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: Okay. Thank you. 4 And just one (1) last thing. You stated this morning as 5 well that when you advise the Crown that you would like 6 to meet with the defence, you get the impression that the 7 Crown isn't happy about that -- 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 9 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: -- and that's from 10 their -- their hand gestures. And that -- 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No, it's not hand 12 gestures. It's the look of the -- just taking a mouthful 13 of sour milk. 14 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: The look. 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: And -- and it's not -- 16 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: But you've never 17 been asked not to meet with the defence? 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: You know, it's like 19 reading transcripts. When I read my transcripts, I look 20 like a stutterer. When I read transcripts of the 21 lawyers, they read -- their transcripts read perfectly. 22 So they -- and you work in language -- you 23 know, you work in language and articulation, and I work 24 in science. 25 So there's nothing particular said, but

256

1 when I read the body language, I get the impression that 2 -- you know what, it's still a -- 3 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: So it's never been 4 said, is what -- 5 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It's never been said, 6 but -- 7 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: -- said, right. 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- you know, that -- 9 that -- you know, I could tell -- I could -- 10 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: And has your 11 impression ever prevented you from meeting with the 12 defence? 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Has my impression ever 14 pre -- if the defence -- 15 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: That the impression 16 that you get, that the Crown doesn't want you to, has 17 that ever prevented you from meeting with the defence? 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It's never prevented me 19 from meeting for the defen -- with the defence. 20 MS. HEATHER MACKAY: Those are all my 21 questions, Commissioner. Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER STEVEN GOUDGE: Thanks, Ms. 23 Mackay. 24 Ms. Ritacca...? 25

257

1 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. LUISA RITACCA: 2 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Thank you, 3 Commissioner. Dr. Wood, I just have a few questions for 4 you this afternoon. 5 Mr. Sandler asked you some questions about 6 your initial involvement in the Sharon case, and I just 7 wanted to follow up on a couple of them to make it clear. 8 Were you contacted by Mr. Blenkinsop at 9 any time, following the first autopsy of Sharon, to view 10 the body? 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. 12 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And did you speak to 13 Mr. Blenkinsop about the case -- the Sharon case in the 14 days or weeks following the first autopsy? 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Not to my knowledge, 16 no. 17 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And did Mr. 18 Blenkinsop ever talk to you about the case as, for 19 example that this was an interesting case that came in, 20 or that Dr. Smith had performed the case at the OCCO in 21 the days or weeks following the first autopsy? 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No, not to my 23 knowledge. 24 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And prior to being 25 contacted by the Kingston police sometime, and I know you

258

1 didn't have a specific recollection, but sometime in and 2 around late 1997 or early 1998, I think that was your -- 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Mm-hm. 4 MS. LUISA RITACCA: -- evidence, did you 5 ever discuss the Sharon case with Mr. Blenkinsop? 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. 7 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Did you discuss it 8 with Dr. Smith? 9 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. 10 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And you -- Ms. Baron 11 asked you some questions about this, and you testified 12 that you recalled attending a meeting at the OCCO 13 sometime after February 1999 with Dr. Chiasson, Dr. 14 Cairns, Mr. Blenkinsop, and you described the meeting as 15 -- as one (1) where Dr. Cairns was concerned about a 16 possible miscarriage of dis -- justice. 17 Do you recall that? 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's right. 19 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Okay. And -- and I 20 just want to be clear, did you -- do you recall any other 21 meeting with those same participants at the OCCO -- 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't recall. 23 MS. LUISA RITACCA: -- about the Sharon 24 case? 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't recall another

259

1 meeting with those participants. 2 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And did you discuss 3 your opinion on the Sharon case with Dr. Smith before you 4 finalized your first report in February 1998? 5 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. Not to my 6 knowledge, no. 7 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Did you discuss your 8 opinion with Dr. Smith before the exhumation and the 9 second autopsy about this case? 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, there was a 11 discussion at the miscarriage of justice meeting. We had 12 a discussion -- a sort of -- as I said this morning, Dr. 13 Cairns went around the table and canvassed everybody, so 14 in as much as that's a discussion, yes. 15 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Okay. Did you have 16 any follow up discussion with Dr. Smith after the autopsy 17 -- second autopsy? 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't believe so, no. 19 MS. LUISA RITACCA: In your evidence -- 20 in answer to a question, you mentioned something called 21 "Project Resolve". 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 23 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And could you tell us 24 what that is? 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Project Resolve, Mr.

260

1 Commissioner, is an effort that's been underway for 2 approximately -- on our part, the Coroner's Office, about 3 four years. We have a number of people that can best be 4 called cold cases. 5 They're found remains of people who are 6 unidentified in the coroner's system. And together with 7 Mr. Arnold, who's the -- currently has Mr. Blenkinsop's 8 job, Michael Pollanen, Kathy Gruspier, is a forensic 9 pathologist -- or profen -- sorry, profensic -- forensic 10 -- 11 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: 12 Anthropologist. 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- anthropologist, yes, 14 thank you, and myself, we are going through each case and 15 whatever we have, we're putting together in a -- in a -- 16 we go through a complete examination of everything and 17 trying to identify these remains. 18 Now, the flipside of that is the Ontario 19 Provincial Police are looking at their people who are 20 missing -- that are missing and presumed dead or 21 seriously -- some -- some serious missing -- missing 22 under suspicious circumstances or what have you -- so 23 they have a whole list of these people which is larger 24 than our list. 25 But, at least, we figure we're doing due

261

1 diligence. We're getting all our material together, and 2 part of that is to do what I did in -- in Thailand and 3 what I've done in other places, is consider it to be like 4 a mass disaster; a slow moving mass disaster. So we have 5 all -- from my perspective, I have designed a database 6 and examined these remains; charted them. I've attended 7 the FBI Academy to make sure we can chart them for the US 8 system. 9 And we have -- so we have charting, we 10 have the CPIC, which is the Canadian mou -- missing 11 person's dental chart. We have the -- the NCIC, which is 12 the FBI missing persons -- or sorry, found human remains 13 dental chart. And then we have digital x-rays and 14 digital photographs of each case. 15 So we're done; we finished our -- in my 16 case, I think there was sixty-five (65) cases with -- 17 with dental records. There's also going to be DNA and 18 everything, so we will have catalogued all that. 19 The OPP are still working on getting the 20 anti-mortem records to my colleague, Dr. Kogan, in the 21 University of Western Ontario, who has designed a 22 database that I can marry my database to. 23 So we can do what's done by the FBI, which 24 is every day run these, so that if we have a missing 25 person come in -- pardon me, if we have a body -- a body

262

1 come in, we can -- we can automatically update that 2 that's where we're at now. 3 So it's a -- it's been something that's 4 been a -- it's been very gratifying. It's a lot of work, 5 but it's -- it's a very -- I think it's a very useful 6 tool. And we're having a little problem with 7 police buy-in right now and getting the anti-mortem side 8 organized with Dr. Kogan -- not with Dr. Kogan -- Dr. 9 Kogan's a gem -- but with the police getting the anti- 10 mortem records -- 11 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 12 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- to Dr. Ko -- Kogan. 13 But this is something that I -- I think is very 14 important, and I -- and I -- I see it as like a major -- 15 a major cor -- project at the Coroner's Office right now. 16 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: What's the 17 total number if there's sixty-five (65) with dental 18 records? 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: You know, I don't know 20 the total number. I would guess, and I'm not sure this - 21 - we know the actual final total number because we're 22 going back forty (40) years, but I believe that these -- 23 this site or the effort has solved -- approximately, we 24 found five (5) people -- or identified five (5) sets of 25 remains.

263

1 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: And -- and it's not 3 just about doing the dental identification. The case -- 4 the first case, which is forty (40) year old case from 5 Frederickton, was a case that was said to be a twenty-one 6 (21) year old by the pathologist at the time. 7 And I looked at the dental records and I 8 said to the police, I said, You might be looking for 9 someone who's twenty-one (21), but this person is between 10 fourteen (14) and sixteen (16) -- or fourteen (14) and 11 seventeen (17), and he was indeed, seventeen (17). 12 So just -- it's more than just charting, 13 it's -- it's also getting the -- 14 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- input from everybody 16 and trying to get as much information out there to the 17 public, and including doing facial reconstructions, which 18 I've got to tell you, since I'm under oath, I think are 19 useless, but in any case, they're also done, and -- 20 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: You refer 21 to that case as from Frederickton. 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Are these 24 cases from across the country? 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, this is the

264

1 problem. You see, we border, I don't know, six (6) or 2 eight (8) US states either by water or by land. 3 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: But these 4 are bodies found in Ontario. 5 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes, they're bodies 6 found in Ontario or in waterways adjacent Ontario, so... 7 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Okay, 8 thanks. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MS. LUISA RITACCA: 11 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Thank you, Dr. Wood. 12 Also in your evidence-in-chief you -- when you were 13 describing the role that a forensic dentist might play at 14 an autopsy, you said that typically when dental material 15 is being used, it makes some sense for -- for you to be 16 present. 17 What's the current practice at the Office 18 of the Chief Coroner? 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: The current practice is 20 if there's impressions to be taken, then I get called. 21 If -- if there's impressions that need to be done, even 22 if I'm not going to do anything with the case other than 23 produce a life like replica, then they'll call me and do 24 that, and that's been for some time, actually. 25 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Right. And that was

265

1 going to be my followup question. What was the practice 2 in the mid to late '90's? 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: You know, if we -- I 4 think we looked at that article. It's in my CV; what I 5 did with -- with Dr. Chiasson and Blenkinsop. I believe 6 it was 1993, so that was taking impressions -- so it 7 would have been back, I think it was '93, perhaps it was 8 at a later... 9 But in any case, I was doing impressions 10 for, I know for Dr. Chiasson, for a very long time, of 11 cut marks and legs and whatnot. 12 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And, along the same 13 vein, Dr. Wood, you testified that today you get called 14 by Dr. Pollanen or the other pathologists at the 15 Coroner's Office in bite-mark, tool-mark and pressure- 16 mark type cases. 17 Are you able to speak about the practice 18 in 1997? 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I get -- I got called 20 back there then as well by the -- by the coroner -- or by 21 the pathologist, depending on the pathologist. And if 22 they figured that they needed me, they would call me. 23 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And did Dr. Chiasson 24 call you? 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Dr. Chiasson used to

266

1 call me fairly frequently. 2 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And -- and I think 3 you spoke about this in relation to the SCAN Team. Did 4 you ever get called or do you ever get called by the 5 Hospital for Sick Children pathology? 6 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Not by pathology. I 7 get called by the office of -- by the Sick Children's. 8 I've been to the SCAN program I think on two (2) 9 occasions to see live children. And I've been to ICU at 10 Sick Children's to see a child who was in very bad shape 11 and there was some allegation that there was a pattern 12 injury. And -- and I examined the child in and, now my - 13 - I think it was in -- I think it was ICU, but certainly 14 ICU level of care. 15 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Thank you. And 16 earlier today you testified about, I think your words 17 were "a vetted group of forensic dentists that are 18 practising for the OCCO". 19 My question to you is: How many people or 20 -- make up this vetted group of forensic dentists? 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: There's -- there's 22 three (3) principal people who also form the core of our 23 mass disaster team that went to Paquette (phonetic). 24 Most of them went to Paquette. And then there's another 25 Fellow in Thunder Bay and then there's -- each one of

267

1 those would have a second -- second-in-command, if you 2 like. 3 My second-in-command happens to be -- the 4 one I call on next happens to be the Fellow from 5 Hamilton, Dr. Barlow, and then I have another person who 6 I also trust who comes in, Dr. Feldman. 7 MS. LUISA RITACCA: So in the first tier, 8 if I can call them that, there's one (1) in Toronto and 9 that's you? 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. 11 MS. LUISA RITACCA: There's one (1) in 12 Hamilton? 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 14 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Dr. Barlow. There's 15 one (1) in Thunder Bay? 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Bruce Pin, Dr. Bruce 17 Pin. 18 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And there's a 19 fourth...? 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: As -- actually, Bruce - 21 - Bruce is -- doesn't have a lot of case work in Thunder 22 Bay but he's -- 23 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Right. 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- I would rely on his 25 -- on his work. And the third one is, and these are in

268

1 no particular order in case they're watching; Dr. Kogan 2 and -- and Dr. Camellato in -- in Ottawa. So it's 3 Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, which includes Niagra, and 4 London southwest, and then Dr. Pin in the north. 5 And most northern cases, actually all the 6 way from Nunavut, come down to the Chief Coroner's Office 7 anyway, so. 8 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And none of the 9 people that you've mentioned are Board Certified except 10 for yourself, is that right? 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's right. 12 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Okay. And -- and if 13 I understood your evidence correctly, they'll do cases 14 based on their geographic location, not necessarily based 15 on -- there's no -- there's no triaging by the Coroner's 16 Office? 17 DR. ROBERT WOOD: As far as the -- 18 MS. LUISA RITACCA: As to who should do 19 the case? 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: As far as difficultly 21 of cases? 22 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Yes. 23 DR. ROBERT WOOD: The only triaging is 24 that these are the approved coroner's experts. 25 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Right.

269

1 DR. ROBERT WOOD: So, yeah, I trust them 2 to gather the appropriate evidence. 3 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And there's nothing 4 beyond that, they're the vetted group? 5 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 6 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Okay. Do you see any 7 value in triaging some of the more difficult cases and 8 when I say more difficult cases, I'm going to say, not 9 the identification cases. 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah. Most 11 identification cases are fairly straightforward. 12 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Right. 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: So if we look at bite- 14 mark cases, the problem I have now is that I have people 15 who are reticent about taking bite-mark cases because of 16 that the -- the so-called chill of -- of being an expert 17 witness and the fear, as I said, the nascent fear 18 dentists have for the Judicial System. 19 So I'm actually getting more bite-mark 20 cases, particularly from Children's Aid and those -- 21 that's troubling because, you know, often despite the 22 fact that I gave them a seminar on data collection and 23 bite-mark evidence collection, the bite-mark evidence 24 that they gather is not usually adequate and so I'm 25 getting cases that I don't -- I always say, if anybody

270

1 wants to do a bite mark case, they're crazy. 2 And my colleagues are -- are proving the 3 point by not wanting to do them because of the -- the 4 fear, you know, the fear of being wrong. And two (2) of 5 them are approaching the end of their career and they 6 don't want to be called ten (10) years from now when 7 they're in their late seventies and asked a bunch of 8 questions about a case that happened ten (10) years ago. 9 They're very fearful of that and I 10 understand -- and I understand their position. 11 So there is some triaging going on already 12 because I'm getting more cases than I actually care to 13 get. 14 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: How do the 15 CAS cases come to you? 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: They -- 17 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Come 18 directly to you? 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: They -- they usually 20 come -- they -- they come either directly to me or they 21 come through the police agencies. But they -- they -- 22 they almost always come through the Coroners's Office 23 somehow. They will call the Coroner's Office -- they'll 24 call -- 25 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Even --

271

1 even though these are live children? 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yes. They'll call and 3 say, Who do you got that's a bite mark expert? 4 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: I see. 5 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I just had one (1) from 6 Ottawa that actually was referred to me by the forensic 7 odontologist in Ottawa, Dr. Camaletto, and then the 8 Ottawa police contacted me. 9 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: Right. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MS. LUISA RITACCA: 12 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And ideally do you 13 think there needs to be more board certified forensic 14 dentists in the Province? 15 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Here's the problem: It 16 takes about ten (10) years to be -- you know, maybe I'm 17 saying that cause it took me ten (10) years -- but it 18 takes about ten (10) years to get enough casework, enough 19 experience. 20 So if you -- and this is -- this is 21 something that Dr. McLellan and I decide, is that if you 22 water down the number of experts then you have a lot of 23 experts doing very little work, which means you'll have 24 very little expertise spread over a large pool. 25 So I think there has to be -- there

272

1 should be a view to educating another forensic 2 odontologist to replace me, board certified, and I'd be 3 happy to, you know, apprentice somebody who I can 4 identify and who promises not to move to Quebec, so that 5 they -- you know, that we could have a replacement for 6 me. That -- that's fine. 7 But to have a number of them, I don't -- 8 if they're -- people are willing to do it and if they can 9 put the cases together God bless them, but I don't think 10 that there's the casework there to do that. I would 11 certainly not stand in anyone's way if they -- if they 12 wanted -- and I would help them. In fact, I've offered 13 to help people if they want to write their boards. 14 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Do you think that the 15 Chief Forensic Odontologist should be board certified? 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I do. 17 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And just -- some 18 follow-up questions arising out of some of the other 19 cross-examination, Dr. Wood. 20 Ms. Baron asked you about the preliminary 21 inquiry in the Sharon case that took place in March of 22 1999, and I -- I believe you indicated that you didn't 23 testify at the preliminary -- 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I did not. 25 MS. LUISA RITACCA: -- hearing. Why

273

1 didn't you testify there? 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I have no idea. 3 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Okay. Do you know 4 why the Crown didn't call you to testify? 5 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No, I haven't -- I 6 haven't a clue. 7 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And did you discuss 8 your opinion of the case with Dr. Smith before he 9 testified at the preliminary inquiry? 10 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Not to my knowledge, 11 no. 12 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And I -- I don't 13 intend to take you to this reference, but you have been 14 taken to the memo prepared by a junior Crown counsel in 15 the case where the ref -- there's a reference to nip it 16 in the bud and -- and reference to Dr. Bechard seeking 17 your assistance. And I think you said that you'd never 18 met or you don't recall meeting Dr. Bechard. 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I don't recall 20 meeting Dr. Bechard, specifically. Now, I've attended 21 coroner's meetings where I -- there might be a hundred 22 (100) coroners's and well say hello, but I'm -- 23 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Right. 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- I'm terrible with -- 25 I'm great with teeth, but I'm terrible with names. So,

274

1 you know -- I mean, if he came in I would -- I would 2 actually probably recognize him if I'd met him before, 3 but -- 4 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Right. 5 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- you know -- 6 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And did you ever talk 7 to Dr. Bechard about the Sharon case? 8 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Not to my knowledge, 9 no. 10 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And I understand from 11 your evidence that you'd never seen this memo before that 12 was put to you earlier today; the nip-it-in-the-bud memo. 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I'd never seen it 14 before the -- this all started -- I mean, this all 15 started. This is -- 16 COMMISSIONER STEPHEN GOUDGE: The 17 preparation for coming here. 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- this has grown in 19 the last couple weeks too. 20 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Right. 21 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I mean, I've got a much 22 smaller binder at my apartment. 23 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Actually it -- it 24 grew over the lunch break. 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Yeah, yeah.

275

1 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And did Constable 2 Barrett, when he did come meet you, indicate that they 3 were looking to you to nip in the bud the dog theory in 4 this case? 5 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No, Constable Barrett 6 was a -- he's a -- he's a consummate professional. I 7 thought he was -- you know, really he just came and he 8 was very he -- he didn't present it as sort of a -- in 9 any particular way. He just said, We just need to know 10 is this -- is it -- this dog bite or not. That's 11 basically what I understood. 12 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Okay. 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Because -- I mean, some 14 police come to you with the whole story about, you know, 15 this person did this and this person I -- I don't recall 16 Dr. -- or sorry, Constable Barrett doing that. 17 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And so Constable 18 Barrett asked you, and I think your phrase in this 19 morning was "dog-not dog." Is that -- 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's basically what I 21 understand. 22 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And, were you asked 23 to posit another theory? So "dog-not dog," but -- 24 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I don't -- I don't 25 recall that I was asked to posit another -- another

276

1 theory about that. 2 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And were you asked to 3 describe the wounds that you were seeing in the picture? 4 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No, not by -- by 5 Constable Barrett? 6 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Yes. 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. 8 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And the -- report 9 that you did prepare, following your meeting -- or I'll - 10 - I'll ask you this: Were you asked to provide any 11 discussion in your report to Dr. -- did Constable Barrett 12 give you any instruction as to what he needed in the 13 report? 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: No. 15 MS. LUISA RITACCA: And your February 16 1998 report, is that reflective of the type of reports 17 you were doing at the time? 18 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, most of my 19 reports are identification reports, which are two (2) to 20 three (3) pages, so I suppose so. 21 MS. LUISA RITACCA: At the time that you 22 prepared the February 1998 report, were you preparing 23 other reports and including literature searches in those 24 other reports? 25 DR. ROBERT WOOD: It's extremely rare for

277

1 me to cite references in reports. I have done it in the 2 past, but it's very rare. 3 MS. LUISA RITACCA: Thank you, Dr. Wood. 4 Those are my questions. 5 COMMISSIONER GOUDGE: Thanks, Ms. 6 Ritacca. 7 Mr. Sandler...? 8 MR. MARK SANDLER: Just wondering if 9 you'd recognize Dr. Bechard if we showed pictures of his 10 teeth. 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That depends. 12 13 RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MARK SANDLER: 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: I only had one (1) 15 area that I want to ask you about, and that's this: You 16 were asked by counsel for AIDWYC a few questions that 17 elicited a response; an explanation of the publication 18 ban that you were promoting in connection with a mediated 19 approach to expert testimony. 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: And -- and you made 22 the point that the Sharon case is on a website and I 23 don't want to go to the details of what the website says 24 and -- and the like, but I do want to ask you this: 25 The Sharon case was a criminal case. The

278
  1  criminal prosecution ended when the Crown withdrew the
  2  charge as having no reasonable prospect of conviction. 
  3  And it's -- I'm going to suggest to you a matter of
  4  public interest to ensure that as good as information as
  5  possible is out there in the public domain for other
  6  forensic odontologists, whether in Canada or elsewhere,
  7  who may be confronted with the same kinds of factual
  8  issues that you were confronted with in the Sharon case.
  9                 Is that a fair comment, so far?
 10                 DR. ROBERT WOOD:   I think that's the
 11  appropriate venue for that, but I -- I don't necessarily
 12  think that the internet is one of them.
 13                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   And -- and I wasn't
 14  suggesting the website or the internet, but I do want to
 15  explore with you what comes from your suggestion about a
 16  publication ban or -- or how the matter should be dealt
 17  with.
 18                 Here you've acknowledged to the
 19  Commissioner that your initial opinion was wrong.
 20                 DR. ROBERT WOOD:   Right.
 21                 MR. MARK SANDLER:   And -- and with that
 22  comes the acknowledgement that the reasons that caused
 23  you to form that opinion were also wrong, in whole, or in
 24  part.
 25                 So -- so the question arises:  Without

279

1 waiting for a miscarriage of justice that might occur 2 because a forensic odontologist somewhere might arguably 3 make that same mistake, how does the message get out now, 4 in your view? 5 DR. ROBERT WOOD: How the message gets 6 out about -- about how it occurs now? Or how -- 7 MR. MARK SANDLER: No. I'm -- I think 8 just something a little bit different. In theory you 9 could write a paper right now that would say, Here's how 10 I got it wrong in the Sharon case. 11 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I'd love to. 12 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And is 13 that the mechanism -- I guess what I'm asking you is: 14 How do you envisage systemically, right now, the message 15 can get out so as to prevent evidence being given in a 16 criminal proceedings that might be given without the 17 benefit of the lessons that you've learned from this 18 case? 19 Do you understand my question? 20 DR. ROBERT WOOD: I think that the -- you 21 know, if anything, maybe the -- the proper mechanism 22 would be to elicit a post hoc, like an afterwards report 23 from the experts saying -- from me, in this case, saying 24 this is why I thought what I thought, if this is where I 25 went wrong.

280

1 And -- and equally important is what to do 2 when you are -- when you are wrong. That's -- that's 3 just as important -- as just -- you know, just -- I mean, 4 you have two (2) choices when you're wrong. You can just 5 pretend you're not wrong and carry on and dig your heels 6 in, or you can say, I'm amending my report, and -- which 7 means I'm changing my opinion and this is why. 8 And I -- I think it's reasonable to have 9 rather than a publication ban, to have a -- to elicit a 10 post hoc report from me, saying this is -- why did you 11 think that? What led you -- the things that meant -- we 12 raised today. Rather than me waiting eleven (11) years 13 and -- and I said, you know, being held up, to a certain 14 extent, in front of my profession to public ridicule, and 15 -- and having to keep my mouth shut, because that's the 16 first rule of the coroner's office and that's the first 17 thing I tell the fellows that work with me is discretion 18 is the first rule. 19 You don't -- you don't speak, even if you 20 feel you need to -- you have a need to defend yourself, 21 you don't. 22 So I think that -- that would be helpful 23 to me as a person, but I think it would also be helpful 24 to the process just to say, Okay, Dr. Wood, why did you 25 think that?

281

1 There should be, perhaps, a mechanism. 2 Perhaps there will be another recommendation I can make 3 that -- I could say, Okay, well, the fact that there's 4 these sharp marks on the skull this is where I still have 5 a problem. 6 Or that I saw the wounds without the -- 7 without the six (6) anterior teeth and -- and then to say 8 the process that I went through in getting all the dead 9 dogs, and the process we went through in reviewing all 10 this literature, that's -- that -- that would be helpful 11 to people afterwards and you could do that in the form of 12 a solicited, I -- I hate to use the word post-mortem, but 13 a -- like a -- a case conference. That -- that's a -- 14 that's a reasonable suggestion to do that. 15 MR. MARK SANDLER: Because I -- I and I'd 16 even suggest something even a little more sophisticated, 17 because you quite candidly acknowledge that -- and -- and 18 I'm putting words in your mouth now, so you tell -- 19 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Please do. 20 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- you tell me -- you 21 tell me if I get it wrong. 22 But what you've also told the Commissioner 23 in response to my questions little bit earlier in the 24 piece, is that -- is that you can see that there should 25 not be an isolation between the forensic pathologist and

282

1 the forensic odontologist. So that, for example Dr. 2 Ferris, or Dr. Milroy, or Dr. Pollanen may have some 3 valuable pathologic expertise that could come to bear 4 upon some of the things that you say as well. 5 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Absolutely. 6 MR. MARK SANDLER: So -- so if one's 7 looking to how one can learn from the Sharon case, 8 ideally one would envisage some sort of an opportunity 9 for those who have been engaged in the process to have 10 that discussion, and out of that generate a piece that 11 explains what were the pitfalls of the case and what we 12 all learn as forensic pathologists and forensic 13 odontologists about it. 14 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Absolutely. It'd be 15 wonderful. 16 MR. MARK SANDLER: All right. And -- and 17 I take it that you see one (1) of the impediments to that 18 -- that the legal process still drags on -- on the -- on 19 the civil side, and -- and that has been somewhat of an 20 inhibitor to you? Is that what I'm taking from what you 21 said? 22 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I can't -- I 23 really don't feel like I should comment on any other 24 further legal issues really. I mean, that certainly -- 25 it certainly --

283

1 MR. MARK SANDLER: I'm -- I'm not asking 2 you to comment -- 3 DR. ROBERT WOOD: -- well, no it's 4 certainly muzzles see -- what you can say freely. 5 MR. MARK SANDLER: The -- the reason I 6 asked you that and I don't mean I -- I don't want to go 7 there into what's happening on the civil proceedings. It 8 was alluded to right at the beginning of -- of your -- 9 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Right. 10 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- testimony. But -- 11 but you -- you told the Commissioner you'd love to write 12 a piece on all of this -- 13 DR. ROBERT WOOD: That's -- 14 MR. MARK SANDLER: -- and I guess what 15 I'm asking you is what's holding you back? 16 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Well, I think you just 17 answered that. I think before you asked the question I 18 think you answered it. I mean, I'm -- I'm still in a 19 situation where I -- I don't feel that I can talk freely 20 about it. 21 MR. MARK SANDLER: Fair enough, that's 22 what I thought. Thank you. 23 Those are all my questions, Commissioner. 24 THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr. Sandler. 25 MR. MARK SANDLER: Thank you very much,

284

1 Dr. Wood. 2 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Thank you, Mr. Sandler. 3 THE COMMISSIONER: Well, thank you very 4 much, Dr. Wood. We very much appreciate the time you 5 put into preparing and coming and talking to us. We 6 appreciate your experience and your thoughts, so -- 7 DR. ROBERT WOOD: Thank you, Mr. 8 Commissioner. 9 THE COMMISSIONER: -- thank you on behalf 10 of all of us. 11 We'll rise then until 10:00 tomorrow 12 morning. 13 14 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN) 15 16 --- Upon adjourning at 4:04 p.m. 17 18 19 Certified Correct 20 21 22 23 ________________ 24 Rolanda Lokey, Ms. 25