Crooked in Canada

It’s a start of a new week for me, and the end of your week in Canada. Hope you’re week was as uneventful as mine was, and I mean that in the politest of ways, I think.

Not much transpired for me over the weekend, it was the same shit, different pile, but I did hear from somebody claiming to be Louise Reynolds, the Ontario woman who if I believed everything that was written about her in the press, got away with murder by blaming the death of a little girl (her daughter) on a dog.

Who am I to argue with the press when it comes to facts in the articles they publish. Louise Reynolds on the other hand, well to me she has about as much credibility as that disgraced pathologist Charles Smith, who by the way did the autopsy on Sharon (the dead little girl) and Louise is suing him.

Just so you know, I think Charles Smith is a waste of skin and that yes he put some innocent people behind bars with his less than accurate autopsies, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t get [it] right once and in a while.

Louise as far as I’m concerned lucked out when the shit hit the fan for the disgraced pathologist, and now she is playing off that to prove her innocent, or at least convince us that she was wrongfully accused. Personally, and as much as I think Charles Smith effed up big time, I don’t believe for one second that all of his autopsy findings were wrong.

Anyway, when it comes to the press and facts, I get it as right as they do, after all it is their facts I rely on when it comes to writing about their news stories.

Sure I make mistakes, sometimes get it wrong, but in my defense, the media got it wrong first, so don’t come bitching and crying to me if I get something I publish about you in Crooked in Canada wrong.

Just make your point and eff off.

If I’ve made a mistake, I’ll fix it, but not before doing a little more checking of the facts on my own. I am not just going to roll over and assume you are right if you’re claiming I got it wrong.

Unlike mainstream media, I don’t have the luxury of being able to check their facts before I publish them in here. Journalists aren’t exactly open with me when it comes to disclosing where, and whom they got the information from. I reciprocate though. I don’t tell them much about my sources either.  Tit for tat.

Yes I make mistakes. Sometimes I slough those mistakes off as a ‘typo’ or my own confusion during multi-tasking, but at the end of the day if I publish something in error, I usually rectify the mistake.

I usually don’t have to have my arm twisted to do that, but I do need more than a rant by the accuser of my wrongdoing to do anything about it.

In Louise Reynolds case, I’m not changing anything, at least not for now.

Louise Reynolds called me out on some misinformation in an article I published on January 26, 2008.

No biggie, but it was just a rant, and I can’t say for sure if the Louise Reynolds who left the comment you see below is the real Louise Reynolds.

You know how it is when it comes to the Internet. People can claim to be anybody they want, not that the Louise Reynolds who left the comment isn’t the real deal.

Her comment:

Submitted on 2009/04/04 at 6:38am

This comment is for the spineless 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.

According to her, she never confessed to a murder, but that’s not what Kingston police investigators if memory serves me well. I’m sure I read that somewhere, but for some reason didn’t include the link to where that little piece of information was, and I am currently doing an intensive Google search to find that news article.

If it’s still out there in cyberspace, I’ll find it and post it here.

In the mean time, I am not buying into the story Louise Reynolds is telling, because from where I am sitting the only evidence she has that she isn’t responsible for her daughter’s death is a second medical examiners report that says that yes, that the wounds on her body were consistent with a dog attack and that she could have died from them.

My theory, the girl was dead before the dog attacked her.

I’m saying that the dog was used to cover up the real circumstances surrounding the little girl’s death.  Only the people in the home at the time of Sharon’s death know that for sure though.

Louise was apparently not home when the little girl died, but her boyfriend was sleeping on the couch.

Maybe the boyfriend did it and Louise helped him to cover up. Who knows, and since I published Is Louise Reynolds Getting Away With Murder, I really don’t care.

She’s a free woman who last I heard was living in Orillia trying to put her life back together after spending two years in jail waiting to go to trial for a murder she claims to this day she never committed.

Only Gord Stowbridge (the sleeping boyfriend) and Louise know what the real story is surrounding the death of Sharon, and 12 years later, they are obviously sticking to their stories.

When I first published anything about this case, I was merely asking a question, as the title suggests. What I would like to know is why now, why if in fact it is the real Louise Reynolds who commented on that article, is she coming out of the woodwork now?

Her story, the one she is telling anyway, is a good one, but I have my doubts and regardless of what she or anybody else who rises to her defense says, I don’t believe she is as innocent as she claims to be. Hey, what can I say, I am entitled to my opinion, as you are your’s.

Pathologist’s mistakes exposed; Dr. Charles Smith erred in 20 child-death cases: panel

Canada Dr. Smith Reports-falsely accused Louise Reynolds fights back (interesting read)