Sharon Reynolds

 

Malicious prosecution

 

Louise Reynolds

 

 

The Globe and Mail:

 

      Another miscarriage?

 

      Saturday, February 10, 2001

 

      Think the justice system is too easy on accused criminals? Think the rights of the accused always get put before the rights of the victim?

      Think the courts make it hard for police to make a case? Consider what happened to Louise Reynolds, and think again.

 

      Ms. Reynolds was 28 and the mother of five when her seven-year-old daughter Sharon was found dead in the basement of her Kingston home, her upper body covered in wounds and her scalp almost torn off. No physical evidence linked her mother to the crime. Ms. Reynolds had no blood on her clothes and no weapon was ever found. She had no history of violence, no criminal record and no obvious motive for killing her daughter.

      Yet Kingston police formulated the theory that she had killed the girl in a fit of rage after finding head lice in Sharon's hair. She was hauled off to jail for murder and spent nearly two years in an isolation cell awaiting trial.

 

      All of this might have been understandable (though hardly excusable) if the police had had no other suspect in Sharon's death. But they did. They quickly learned that a pit bull terrier had been confined in the Reynolds basement at the time of Sharon's death. When the dog's owner came to get the animal, he noticed that its chest was stained red. Subsequent tests found Sharon's blood on the dog's collar.

 

      Still the police said Ms. Reynolds was the killer, brushing off the evidence about the dog by suggesting it had interfered with her corpse.

      Only when Sharon's body was exhumed and re-examined did an expert pathologist confirm that she had died of dog bites, not stab wounds as claimed by the police and another pathologist.

 

      Even then, the Crown waited another year to withdraw the charges. By the time Ms. Reynolds at last went free on Jan. 25, she had lost everything: her reputation, her possessions, contact with her four other children and almost four years of her life. Now she is suing the Kingston police and other authorities for $7-million, claiming malicious prosecution and false imprisonment.

 

      The name of Louise Reynolds joins an infamous list in the annals of Canadian justice. Donald Marshall. David Milgaard. Guy Paul Morin. These cases show that, far from coddling the accused, police and prosecutors often trample on their rights. Instead of presuming innocence, they assume guilt, and stick to the assumption even when the evidence turns against them. In Mr. Morin's wrongful prosecution for the murder of Christine Jessop, police made him their man because he was an "eccentric" loner. In the Reynolds case, she became the target partly because of her troubled life as the mother of five children by five different men.

 

      The presumption of innocence is the golden thread that runs through our system of justice. It means nothing unless it belongs to everyone -- not just the upstanding and respectable, but the unorthodox and even the suspicious. When the thread is broken, the system that is meant to protect us all can become a destroyer of lives -- lives like the one Louise Reynolds once had, but will never have again.

 

 

                                    

 

 

PATHOLOGIST’S ORIGINAL CONCLUSIONS IN SHARON REYNOLDS’ AUTOPSY

 

 

 

 

ODONTOLOGIST’S ORIGINAL CONCLUSIONS IN THE SHARON REYNOLDS’ CASE

 

 

 

 

STATEMENTS MADE BY THE CROWN PATHOLOGIST

AT LOUISE REYNOLDS’ PRELIMINARY HEARING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE DEFENSE EXPERT WITNESS’ PRELIMINARY FORENSIC ODONTOLOGICAL REPORT

 

I am of the opinion that there are more than twenty bitemarks on the body.

 

These bitemarks are consistent with those of animal origin, most likely a dog.

 

In addition, the descriptions of the trauma provided in the autopsy report by Dr. -----------------  dated March 8, 1998, enhance, reinforce and strengthen my opinion that the trauma described is attributable to a powerful animal.

 

 

 

THE DEATH OF SHARON REYNOLDS AND SUBSEQUENT MURDER CHARGES AGAINST HER MOTHER UNDERLINE TWO IMPORTANT ISSUES REGARDING MEDICAL/DENTAL EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY: ACCOUNTABILITY AND BOARD CERTIFICATION.

 

AN EXPERT WITNESS IS ONE WHOSE  BACKGROUND, KNOWLEDGE, TRAINING, EDUCATION, SKILL AND EXPERIENCE  ARE CRUCIAL.

 

AN OPINION IS TO AN EXPERT WITNESS AS A DIAGNOSIS IS TO A PHYSICIAN/DENTIST.  AN ERRONEOUS  OPINION IS POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC.  LIABILITY MAY RESULT FROM SUCH OPINIONS.

 

THIS CASE ALSO ILLUSTRATES THE NEED FOR BOARD CERTIFICATION IN THE DIFFERENT SPECIALITIES OF FORENSICS.  THE AMERICAN BOARD OF FORENSIC ODONTOLOGY IS THE CERTIFICATION BOARD IN FORENSIC ODONTOLOGY.

 

 

 

AMERICAN BOARD OF FORENSIC ODONTOLOGY, INC.

 

BACKGROUND, FUNCTIONS & PURPOSES

 

The need to identify forensic scientists unequivocally qualified to provide essential professional services for the Nation's judicial and executive branches of government has long been recognized.  In response to this professional mandate, the American Board of Forensic Odontology was organized in 1976 to provide, in the interest of the public and the advancement of the science, a program of certification in forensic odontology.  In purpose, function, and organization, the AMERICAN BOARD OF FORENSIC ODONTOLOGY, Inc., herein after referred to as ABFO, is thus analogous to the certifying Boards in various medical specialties and scientific fields.

 

The objective of the Board is to establish, enhance, and revise as necessary, standards of qualification for those who practice forensic odontology, and to certify as qualified specialists those voluntary applicants who comply with the requirements of the Board.  In this way, the Board aims to make available a practical and equitable system for readily identifying those persons professing to be specialists in forensic odontology who possess the requisite qualifications and competence.

 

Certification is based upon the candidate's personal and professional record of education, training, experience and achievement, as well as the results of a formal examination.