Charles Smith attacked easy targets; many of those he helped convict shared parental similarities. James Lockyer represented Marquardt and several others in whom Smith played a role in the conviction. She states that being an "easy, easy mark" was the common denominator among those she helped exonerate of Smith's wrongdoings and "Tammy was a good example of an easy mark [being] an impoverished young single mother and welfare recipient social" (Shapiro, 2011). It becomes very clear that Charles Smith targeted his victims regardless of the evidence found (or fabricated) to support their guilt or innocence. He speculated on matters that were so far removed from his duty as a medical expert, raising legitimate concerns about his intent to fulfill his assigned role, or whether his desire was a hero for the prosecution and sure conviction of “failed parents.” Tammy Marquardt easily fits into this poor parent category as a “teenage mother with a history of substance abuse and difficult relationships with men” (Shapiro, 2011). Her lifestyle and choices were classified as deviant, leaving her stigmatized. Her youth and heavy drug use raised doubts about her ability to parent responsibly and were consequently used to convict her. To the Crown the hard, hard facts of the case meant less than the social status of the defendants, as is often seen in tort cases