Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Fake expert testimony? Greg Carter testified in Durham family court cases

This is a remarkable story and one that affected people far beyond the Whitby/Oshawa area. Obviously the facts of the specific case are before the Court which will decide what actually happened, but the need for careful qualification of expert witnesses seems apparent. One only needs to think of the last problematic expert witness case in the Oshawa courthouse -- a woman spent 14 years in jail for a crime that never took place:

http://www.newsdurhamregion.com/news/article/179206


Whitby man accused of faking doctorate pleads not guilty to fraud
TONY BOCK / TORSTAR

Greg Carter testified in Durham family court cases
Jun 13, 2011
JEFF MITCHELL
OSHAWA -- A Whitby psychological associate accused of faking his credentials while testifying in family court cases has pleaded not guilty to fraud.

Greg Carter entered the plea after being arraigned on five counts of fraud under $5,000 Monday morning in Oshawa. Testimony in the trial is expected to begin Wednesday.

Mr. Carter, of Whitby, was charged in January 2010 with fraud, perjury and obstructing justice. Durham police alleged Mr. Carter falsely identified himself as a psychologist in family court proceedings, some of which resulted in parents losing bids for custody of their children.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I asked on your most recent Smith post (a few days ago) why Carter was charged by the Durham Police for proffering unqualified testimony but Smith was given a pass by the OPP/AG. You ignored the question so I thought I'd ask one more time.

James C Morton said...

I'm sorry -- I must have missed it. My guess is that the Smith, although clearly wrong, may well have believed his testimony to be true. There's no crime in being wrong so long as you are honest. Carter, at least according to the allegations, must have known he didn't have the qualifications claimed and so was not honest. Of course, this is all for a court to decide!

Anonymous said...

RE: "There's no crime in being wrong as long as you are honest."

Even if Smith believed his testimony was honest (and that is hard to believe) the real question is whether his self-confessed "woefull ineptitude" rose to the level of criminal negligence. In other words - any fool (masquarading as a competent expert)can claim to be honest yet still be negligent - even criminally negligent. Seems like the system doesn't want to lay charges that would require exploring this unexamined aspect of the Smith debacle.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't hiding important evidence like the hair in the Waudby case take Smith beyond the "honest" category?

James C Morton said...

That may be -- my sense is Smith was seen as honest but mistaken

Anonymous said...

Everyone loves what you guys are up too. Such clever work and exposure!
Keep up the amazing works guys I've included you guys to our blogroll.

My weblog; insomnia 411
my website - insomnia jeopardy