Eleven years ago seven-year-old Sharon Reynolds died under mysterious circumstances. After disgraced pathologist Charles Smith completed his autopsy he concluded that not only had the girl been mauled by the family dog (a pit bull) but that she had been stabbed with a sharp object. I’m no pathologist, but based on those findings it would have been hard, if not impossible, to determine what exactly caused the death of the little girl from Kingston, Ont. Was it the dog, or was it the sharp object?
Enter the prime suspect, the girl’s mother. Despite more than one confession from Louise Reynolds four years after the fact, all charges against her were dropped, and today she is suing Smith and another pathologist who concurred with Smith’s original findings, for wrongfully accusing her of murder.
In my opinion Reynolds is suing because if she didn’t sue after the murder charge was dropped, people like me would have drawn the conclusion that she might have actually had something to do with her daughter’s death. Add to the fact that it has since been discovered that Smith failed miserably as a pathologist, and well you get the picture. She is now going to be able to cash in on her notoriety and if she wins, it will go along way in cementing her innocence.
Reynolds to date has been a very lucky prime suspect when it comes to her daughter’s suspicious death, and for all intents and purpose for this blog entry; it appears that she has gotten away with murder. At least that’s my take on it based on reports I have heard on this story so far.
Aside from her confession, I have heard that there was an effort to clean up the scene before police arrived, and I have also heard that there are more than a handful of respectable police officers who believe that in their opinion and based on the evidence gathered, some of which was later lost, she should have been charged with the Sharon’s murder and the case should have gone to trial.
Now for my spin on what I think happened as far as the little girl’s death goes.
I think Louise Reynolds stabbed her seven-year-old daughter for reasons known only to her (though they were likely highlighted in her confession) and that she used the family pet to help her cover up the murder. It wouldn’t have been hard to do, and given what we know about a pit bulls propensity for violence, it would have been very easy at the time to blame the death on the dog. It wouldn’t have been hard for the mother, and pit bulls’ master to encourage the dog to chew on the dead girls’ limp body like she was a toy. The dog would have had a heyday with the scent of blood already on the body.
And the attempt to clean up the blood at the scene, that smacks of an attempted cover-up of a crime. Everybody, no matter how deranged and confused they might be, knows that tampering with a “potential” crime scene is a good way to deflect attention from what actually happened. Ms. Reynolds tried to clean up the blood to save her own hide. If it wasn’t for her confession I might think otherwise.
That being said, I think she did it and that she is very lucky that the pathologist that performed the autopsy has come under scrutiny for the manner in which he handled some of his cases.
As for lawyer claiming that her innocence has been established, I was of the understanding that the police didn’t have enough evidence to move forward with the murder charge after Reynolds spent two years in jail and then another two years in a halfway house. She wasn’t found innocence of the charges she was facing, they were dropped.
Peter Wardle’s (Reynolds’ lawyer) claim that his client’s innocence was established is hogwash. The charges were dropped, there was no trial to prove whether she was innocent or not after two pathologists, one of whom isn’t under scrutiny to the best of my knowledge, determined that there were stab wounds on Sharon’s head.
Woman Sighted On Mars
A Little Tongue in Ch
Where does NASA get off disputing Dr. John Gray’s theory that women are from Venus and men are from Mars by producing a picture of Mars with what they claim is a woman relaxing on a rock? Thanks to Gray’s best seller, those that have read it (not me though) know better. Women come from Venus not Mars.
For NASA to suggest that the person in the photo they have published is a woman is unfair, and smacks of sexism. I have looked at the two images that appeared on Yahoo Canada’s homepage and while I admit that the figure appears to have breasts, they could be man boobs right? How can NASA be so sure that the figure is a woman, and if they have proof positive that it is a woman, how can they explain the arrival of a woman on mars, and why would she go there, that’s what I want to know.
All kidding aside and in my opinion, its’ a hoax, and if I were to do a little research (I’m not inclined to do so at the moment) its’ quite possible that I would discover that NASA’s budget is up for review, and that this is merely an attempt to show those who fund the space agency that research to find life on another planet is worth investing in.
Sphere: Related Content
14 responses so far ↓
1 lilshorty // May 9, 2008 at 6:05 PM
the dog might of been helping to save that little girl from dieing…im pritty sure if the family dog really did kill Sharon then why is there not any blood around him mouth and his body and only on his chest..it’s commen sence that the dog would have blood all over his body if he did do it and also if he really did do it then why didn’t anyone hear him making alot of noise when he was hurting her… im pritty sure if the dog did it then her mother nd father would of heard the dog growling and Sharon screaming for “HELP”..if it wasn’t her mother and it was the dog wouldn’t you think Louise or her dad would go and see what was going on because i sure as “HELL” would if that was my child…
2 Canadian Gypsy // May 9, 2008 at 6:34 PM
I think the mother of the little girl is a very devious woman, and that she thinks she came up with the perfect story to tell to get away with murder.
Dead girls can’t talk, but if this one could I’m sure she would be telling quite a different story from the one her mother is telling.
I think the woman did it, but it doesn’t matter what I think since I’m not the one sitting on the jury.
Good to hear from you lilshorty, don’t be a stranger.
3 Canadian Gypsy // May 9, 2008 at 6:39 PM
Funny, I just did a quick google search to see what became of this case, but it doesn’t look like there is much be said online about the case.
The only thing I could find, and I didn’t look very hard, was something dated last January.
I wonder what is going on with the murder suspect.
4 lilshorty // May 10, 2008 at 7:25 AM
Don’t yu worri im nott going to be a stranger because i know the truth for this whole case…
My little sister wuz there the damn night thus all happened she’s the one who told my all of wut realli did happened nd she’s still honted by it still to this day nd she’s 18 years old now… Louise is a lier she juss dosen’t want anyone to know that she killed her own 7 years old little girl witch is pritty damn sad.. like these are all type’s of question’s the the Kingston police should be asking like…
Why dose the pit bull only have blood stain’s on his chest nd nott any where elt??? Why wouldn’t they hear the dog nd Sharon sreaming?ect..wouldn’t yu think that the dog would have to have Sharon’s blood all over him including his mouth if he realli did do it.. like they killed an inicent dog that wuz trying to help her from her mother.. I think it’s pritty pathetic that Louise has enought nerve to kill her daughter her own damn blood nd then blame the dog…
5 Canadian Gypsy // May 10, 2008 at 8:17 AM
The crime scene would have been a lot messier than it was when police arrived. I understand that Reynold’s cleaned it up too.
It couldn’t have been too messy if she was able to clean it up and taint the crime scene.
If you want to tell the story as you know it, then I will provide you with a platform to do it in Crooked in Canada. Of course I would edit it to insure that neither you or I could be held liable for passing on our thoughts on about the case.
If you want to tell it like you think it is, this is the place to do it.
Rather than post your thoughts in comments I can publish what you have to say on the mainpage of Crooked in Canada.
Send your thoughts to editor@crookedincanada.com and I will do my best to tell the story the way you are telling me.
I can edit it so that it doesn’t appear you are making defamatory or libelist statements against this Reynolds woman.
Take care of yourself.
6 lilshorty // May 10, 2008 at 5:16 PM
im sorri but im gunna tell it how it is im nott trying to sound rude or anything…. oh nd but the way i juss tried to send yu an email but it will not let me for sum reason…. juss plz email me nd we can talk bout this there….
lilshorty_696@hotmail.com
sincerly yur: Lilshorty
7 MizZ SmiLeZ // May 19, 2008 at 4:49 AM
i think that the mother is a crazed woman that deserves to b in whitby mental heath center becasue the marks were from scissors if the dog had of killed her she would b all torn up not stab wounds. the dog cant grow hands stab a 7year old girl then move her under the stairs. that is the job of a human and she is using the dog to get out of it. the house would have been alot more bloody if a dog did it becaue a dog would have just attacked and ripped her apart. Louise can convince the cops and the courts that it wuz the dog that did it but she cannot convince the rest of the world because the rest of the world KNOWS she did it.
8 Canadian Gypsy // May 19, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Hey there MizZ, good to hear from y0u.
You know, I wrote this blog entry on January 26, and at the time there was little or no interest in Louise Reynold’s story, as bad as it is. Then 4 months later the story is revived in Crooked in Canada.
I wonder why that is, is there something new going on in the Louise Reynold case, or is it just a coincidence that people are suddenly taking an interest in it? It doesn’t matter I guess, but I think it’s interesting just the same.
That being said, it is obvious to me that there might be a lot of people (especially in the Kingston area) who believe that Reynolds is getting away with murder, and for the record, I agree with those people.
I truly believe that the girl was dying from her stab wounds and then Louise Reynolds set the dog on her to finish the job that she couldn’t finish, kill her own flesh and blood.
I also think she took the time to clean the dog up before she called 911.
Whether she is locked up in Whitby, put in Penatanguishene (is that place still open?), or put behind bars; she should be locked up for the rest of her life.
Everybody is arguing that there should have been a lot more blood at the scene, on the dog and around the house if the dog did it, but that mess could have easily been cleaned up before police arrived on the scene.
Another scenario that could have been played out is that the little girl was playing with scissors when a playful dog pounced on her and the little was accidentally stabbed by the force of the impact of the dog jumping on her.
I don’t know, there are a lot of different scenarios that could have played out, but I am more inclined to believe that Reynolds killed her daughter. If Reynolds hadn’t cleaned up the scene I would have no reason to suspect that she killed her daughter. Somebody with nothing to hide would not have gone out of their way to clean up the scene before the police arrived.
I think it was a staged scene, and I think Reynolds is putting on quite an act.
What is her family saying about this?
Have a good MizZ, take care.
9 BoNAPPetite // Mar 6, 2009 at 8:38 AM
It wasnt the family’s dog. it was the dog of “Louise’s acquaintance in the building”. Also, the dog was in the basement of the apartment building which was a long ways from where Louise’s boyfriend was who was watching out for her. Dr. Charles Smith, a disgrace to mankind (his credibility is being questioned in 19 other cases as well as Louise Reynolds) decided that this 28-year-old mother of 5 children built up the energy, stamina, and strength to stab her own daughter 82 times. I find it difficult to believe that a woman (as they have less muscle mass even though it would be unbelievable even if a man could stab something or someone 82 times) could do such a thing. We are talking about minutes and minutes of repeatedly stabbing someone. It’s impractical and before you argue that Louise may have sicked the dog on her, remember that Smith concluded that ALL the wounds were from a sharp object. All of them.
10 CG // Mar 6, 2009 at 10:01 AM
I know all about Charles Smith, and how pathetic he is, but at the end of the day there is the distinct possibility that Reynolds is responsible for the girls death.
How do you explain her attempting to clean up the scene? Why would she bother to take the time do that if she wasn’t trying to cover up something?
Also, why would I argue that she sicked the dog on the girl?
By the way, in a frenzied attack the adrenaline gets pumping mate. Stabbing somebody 82 times might be a lengthy and tiring process, but it isn’t out of the realm of possibilities.
11 Louise Reynolds // Apr 4, 2009 at 6:38 AM
This comment is for the spinless piece if crap that wrote about me on here. Before you shoot your mouth off get you facts straight. THERE WAS NEVER EVER A CONFESSION.
12 CG // Apr 4, 2009 at 9:14 AM
Geez Louise, did you read the title of this blog entry? I don’t know if there was a confession or not. I just write about what I read. It sounds to me that you bit off more than the dog could chew. Explain to me exactly how it is you didn’t hear the commotion, and didn’t you try to clean up the scene? Add me to the list of people who aren’t buying into your claim of innocence.
13 anyone // Feb 13, 2010 at 3:44 AM
http://pit-bull-awareness-center.christianfunfair.org/5-year-old-attack.gif,
For those who feel that a pit bull is not responcible please view this link, you might think differently or you may not however I believe that this was done by the dog and not the mother.
14 CG // Feb 13, 2010 at 10:48 AM
justme,
You a entitled to your opinion, as is everybody who leaves a comment in Crooked in Canada. Just so you know though. I haven’t wavered in the least. I think Reynolds is as guilty as you think pit bulls are dangerous.
comments