ACCORDING TO MR. GORRELL, THE APPLICANT MAINTAINED HIS INNOCENCE FROM THE OUTSET OF HIS CASE, UNTIL THE VERY POINT HE ATTENDED MR. GORRELL’S OFFICE TO PROVIDE HIM WITH WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CONTRARY, AND TO ACCEPT THE CROWN’S OFFER.
THE APPLICANT HAD PREVIOUSLY DENIED ANY INVOLVEMENT IN HIS SON’S DEATH IN ALL OF HIS INTERVIEWS WITH THE POLICE, AND IN ALL OF HIS CONSULTATIONS WITH MR. GORRELL AND MR. KISSOON, WHO ALSO WORKED ON THE FILE.
AFFIDAVIT OF ALISON CRAIG:
THIS WAS A MAN WITH NO RECORD – A NEW IMMIGRANT TO THIS COUNTRY, A WIFE WITH A BRAIN TUMOR, A JOB. HE WAS A CONTRIBUTING MEMBER OF SOCIETY, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN AN ATOMIC BOMB GOES OFF IN HIS LIFE – MURDER 2. YOU HAVE TO TELL HIM BECAUSE THEY ALWAYS ASK, WHAT’S THE PENALTY, AND YOU SAY, LIFE WITH A MINIMUM PENALTY OF TEN YEARS – TEN YEARS…HIS WHOLE LIFE WOULD BE SHATTERED.
JUST TO CONTINUE WITH THIS, WHAT – I SAID, MY HEART WENT OUT TO GAUROV’S FATHER. I DON’T KNOW HOW I’D – I’D ACT IN THIS SITUATION IF I HAD SOMEONE LIKE MR. STRUTHERS (SIC) SAYING WELL, YOU CAN GET 90 DAYS ON WEEKENDS. AFTER REMISSION, THAT’S 60 DAYS. THAT’S A MAXIMUM OF 15 WEEKENDS. THE MIMICO JAIL IS JAMMED, SO YOU’LL WIND UP DOING ONLY THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE. YOU CAN DO THAT, OR YOU CAN SIT IN THE COURTROOM AND BE JUDGED BY EVERYBODY WITH A RISK, WITH CHARLES SMITH UP THERE WITH A MANTLE OF SICK KIDS ON HIS SHOULDER. YOU CAN GO TO JAIL. YOU CAN GO TO JAIL ON MANSLAUGHTER.
LAWYER DAVID GORRELL TO THE GOUDGE INQUIRY;
ACCORDING TO MR. GORRELL, THE APPLICANT WAS UNDER ENORMOUS STRESS, HAVING JUST MOVED TO CANADA, BEING UNABLE TO SPEAK ENGLISH, TRYING TO HOLD A NEW JOB TO SUPPORT HIS FAMILY, CARING FOR HIS EXTREMELY ILL WIFE, AND DEALING WITH THE TRAGIC DEATH OF ONE SON AND SUBSEQUENT APPREHENSION BY CHILDREN’S AID OF THE OTHER.
MR. GORRELL BELIEVES THAT ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS THE APPLICANT PLED GUILTY MAY HAVE BEEN TO ENSURE THAT HIS FAMILY COULD REMAIN TOGETHER, AND TO AVOID LOSING CUSTODY OF HIS SURVIVING SON FOREVER.
AFFIDAVIT OF ALISON CRAIG, AN ASSOCIATE WITH THE TORONTO LAW FIRM LOCKYER, CAMPBELL, POSNER;
This post is dedicated to Gaurov's Father and his family.
I hope it will be read by every member of his community so that each and every member of that community will understand the cruel ordeal that Dinesh Kumar - this humble, loving man - was put through by the state and its agents at a time of personal struggle and loss.
It was hard enough to be a newcomer to this country - new to its language, new to its institutions, new to its justice system - without being branded as a murderer and feeling pressured to plead guilty to a horrific crime he did not commit.
All this at a time when he was torn with grief over the loss of a son and anxiety over a seriously ill wife.
As will be seen, Mr. Kumar saw himself as a pariah in the eyes of his community - that same community that he should have been able to look to for consolation at that time of immeasurable loss.
The least people can do now is to make an effort to understand what happened to Mr. Kumar and his family and give them the support and comfort they will always deserve.
Earlier this week, the Ontario Court of Appeal made the extraordinary decision to allow Mr. Kumar to appeal the conviction - sixteen years after he felt compelled to plead guilty to avoid the risk of being convicted and jailed for life for murder because of the involvement of the then-revered Dr. Charles Smith in the case.
An affidavit obtained from the Ontario Court of Appeal is a good place to start for those who want to learn more about the case;
The affidavit was sworn by Alison Craig, one of Mr. Kumar's lawyers, and filed in support of the appeal
"The Applicant was the father of two sons," the narrative portion of the affidavit begins.
"The younger, the deceased Gaurov Kumar, was born on February 11, 1992," it continues;
"He died five weeks later on March 20, 1992, after he had been found by his father limp and gasping for air two nights earlier.
Dr. Charles Smith performed the autopsy on Gaurov, and concluded that Gaurov died as a result of “Shaken Baby Syndrome”.
On June 29, 1992, the Applicant was charged with second degree murder.
On December 3, 1992, he pleaded guilty to a new Information alleging Criminal Negligence Causing Death, and was sentenced to a 90 day term of imprisonment to be served intermittently, followed by two years probation.
The charge of second degree murder was withdrawn.
The Applicant duly served his sentence and completed his probation.
The Applicant did not file an appeal of his conviction or sentence, and this application constitutes his first attempt to do so.
4. In the mid to late 1990s and up to the present day, medical opinions about the Shaken Baby Syndrome have changed, and medical research about it has continued to develop, such that in many cases its viability as a theory for a cause of death for an infant has come under challenge.
Some medical experts have gone so far as to suggest that the condition of Shaken Baby Syndrome is a medical myth.
Undoubtedly, there is now considerable debate about the diagnosis in some or all cases in which it has been put forward as a cause of death, and that debate has led to a number of Shaken Baby Syndrome convictions being quashed in the United Kingdom (see, for example, R. v. Harris  EWCA Crim. 1980 and R. v. Cannings  2 Cr.App.R. 7).
The same debate was recently considered by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in Wisconsin v. Edmunds; Jan. 31/2008, AP933.
Included in the facts of the Edmunds case was the potential of a spontaneous re-bleeding of an older subdural hemorrhage having occurred to the deceased infant.
This possibility also arises on the medical evidence in the Applicant’s case regarding Gaurov’s cause of death because his autopsy, too, revealed evidence of an older (birth) subdural hemorrhage.
5. The Applicant’s case came to the fore between 2006 and 2007 as a result of the Chief Coroner’s review of criminal suspicious and homicide cases, dating back to 1991, in which Dr. Charles Smith had performed an autopsy or provided an opinion.
In Gaurov’s case, Dr. Smith had performed the autopsy and certified a shaken baby cause of death.
In April 2007, the Chief Coroner announced that the Review had uncovered 20 cases in which a team of external reviewing pathologists had significant disagreements with Dr. Smith’s opinions.
Gaurov’s case was one of these.
Since then, the Goudge Inquiry has heard substantial testimony about Gaurov’s case, principally from Professor Helen Whitwell, a forensic pediatric pathologist from England, Dr. Michael Pollanen, the Chief Forensic Pathologist for the Province of Ontario, and David Gorrell, the Applicant’s lead counsel at his guilty plea in 1992.
The Kumar Family History
6. The Applicant’s wife, Veena, immigrated to Canada in 1989 from India.
She was joined in October, 1990 by the Applicant.
They lived in a one bedroom apartment at 90 Tuxedo Court, Apartment 1009, in Scarborough, Ontario.
Neither spoke English.
They were landed immigrants when Gaurov died.
7. On October 9, 1990, the Applicant’s elder son, Saurob, was born in Toronto. Gaurov was born in Toronto on February 11, 1992.
One day after Gaurov’s birth, his mother was diagnosed with a brain tumor.
She was hospitalized for approximately one month and underwent major brain surgery during which the tumour was removed.
She returned home to the Applicant and her first born son on March 13, 1992, five days prior to Gaurov’s death.
During the period that the Applicant’s wife was in hospital, Gaurov was primarily cared for by her brother and his wife.
The Applicant continued to work, and helped care for Gaurov and his brother after work.
8. The Applicant was, and has remained to the present day, the prime support for his family.
At the time of Gaurov’s death in 1992, he was employed as a general labourer at a factory in the Scarborough area.
Today, he is employed as a materials handler at a printing company in Markham. His wife works part time for a Temp Agency.
Saurob is in Grade 12 at school.
The Applicant’s wife and Saurob are now Canadian citizens.
The Applicant never applied for citizenship for fear that his conviction for Gaurov’s death could come up if he did so.
9. On the night of Tuesday, March 17 to Wednesday, March 18, 1992, the Applicant put Gaurov, now 5 to 6 weeks old, in his crib at 9:00 p.m.
At midnight, Gaurov awoke and the Applicant fed him milk. After burping the baby, he put him back to sleep.
At 1:00 a.m., Gaurov awoke, crying.
The Applicant went to him and picked him up from his crib.
Gaurov gasped, went limp, and began to turn blue.
The Applicant, who had received some first aid training at school, attempted artificial respiration and mouth to mouth resuscitation on his infant son.
He and his wife then called his wife’s brother who told them to call 911.
They did so, and told the operator that Gaurov was not breathing.
The Applicant continued his attempts to revive Gaurov.
10. Mrs. Kumar’s brother and sister-in-law arrived, as did emergency personnel.
The aunt was seen by emergency personnel to give Gaurov “three to four... good hard shakes ... but not ... a violent shake.”
Emergency personnel then took over and administered first aid to Gaurov.
11. Gaurov was taken to Scarborough Centenary Hospital and his breathing was restored.
Milk in his mouth was suctioned out, and more milk was aspirated from his stomach.
The Applicant explained to the doctor as best he could (his English was poor) what had happened.
Gaurov was diagnosed by Dr. Beaulieu as having suffered from Cardiorespiratory arrest secondary to choking spell.
A secondary diagnosis was also provided: Anemia of unknown etiology, possible central nervous system haemorrhage.
12. Gaurov was transferred that same morning to the Hospital for Sick Children and put on life-support.
He was brain-dead.
On Friday, March 20, 1992, the life support was removed and Gaurov died.
His brother Saurob was immediately apprehended by Children’s Aid.
13. The next day, March 21, 1992, Dr. Charles Smith conducted Gaurov’s autopsy at the Hospital for Sick Children.
The police synopsis of the case summarized his findings as follows:
Dr. Smith found extensive hemorrhaging within the brain, behind both retinas and around the spinal cord.
It was his opinion based on a great deal of expertise that these critical medical abnormalities had all the earmarks of injuries sustained after an episode of “Shaken Baby Syndrome”.
This condition occurs when an infant is picked up and shaken violently.
Because of under-developed muscles in the neck and spinal areas, the infant’s head is whiplashed uncontrollably and the brain is literally “ping-ponged” within the skull.
This trauma leads to hemorrhaging which, in turn, leads to brain swelling and dire consequences, i.e. death.
After the Post Mortem examination, Dr. Smith conducted further tests to clarify his initial diagnoses and at the same time rule out any other possible anatomical cause(s) for the injuries.
After conducting the tests, Dr. Smith solidified his previous opinion by declaring that the injuries were definitely not accidental in nature and because of the absence of external trauma, the injuries were consistent with his previous findings, to wit: “Shaken Baby Syndrome”.
He even took it one step further and explained that the damage present was probably the result of continuous shaking as opposed to a single violent shake.
Dr. Smith was unable to pinpoint the exact time the injuries occurred based on pathological examination but surmised that a baby with such critical injuries would be unable to feed normally as reported by the accused in all his statements to both medical and police personnel.
Therefore, it is his contention that the injuries must have been inflicted during the time frame between the last feeding at 12:30 a.m., and the time the 911 call was placed.
During this crucial period the accused was the only person to have exclusive control of the infant and therefore the only person with exclusive opportunity to cause the critical injuries to the child.
Dr. Smith’s conclusions were endorsed by Dr. Dirk Huyer, a physician who was a member of the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Program (the SCAN unit) at the Hospital for Sick Children.
Dr. Huyer reported as follows:
In summary, the clinical diagnosis in this child was most likely Shaken Baby Syndrome.
Dr. McGreal, the staff neurologist involved in the child’s care agreed with this diagnosis.
Preliminary autopsy results are consistent with this diagnosis.
It is a very concerning injury and typically results from violent noticeable shaking of the child.
No history of shaking was provided and shaking was denied on direct questioning.
The lack of history to explain the clinical diagnosis is very concerning and coupled with the known mechanism is very suggestive of non-accidental injury.
The Appellant’s Arrest and Guilty Plea;
14. On June 26, 1992, the Applicant was charged with second degree murder.
He was released on bail on July 10, 1992.
He was represented by Mr. David Gorrell and Mr. Dhaman Kissoon.
15. On August 27, 1992, the Crown, Ms. Rita Koehl, wrote to Mr. Gorrell to confirm that, on June 10 (sic), 1992, she had offered to withdraw the second degree murder charge if there was a plea to Criminal Negligence Causing Death;
Subsequently, on December 3, 1992, the Applicant entered a guilty plea before His Honour Judge Ormston of the Provincial Court (Criminal Division) on a new Information alleging Criminal Negligence Causing Death;
Judge Ormston accepted a joint submission on sentence and sentenced the Applicant to 90 days imprisonment to be served intermittently, followed by two years probation.
A transcript of the plea proceedings was sought by current counsel but is no longer available.
Judge Ormston’s notes of the plea are also unavailable.
However, a document has been found, in the handwriting of Ms. Koehl or the investigating officer, which is likely a record of Judge Ormston’s reasons for sentence. The document states:
December 5, 1992
R v. Kumar
In the circumstances of this tragic matter - in my opinion I agree this tragic death as a result of extreme stress-related incident
early p/g [plea of guilt]
truly remorseful and sorry
wishes to take appropriate steps asap
willing to take steps to correct his skills to ensure safety of his children
impressed by support shown
Take into account no record
Productive member of society since arrived here
12 days p/t [pretrial] custody – 2xs as hard as normal – credit for 24 days
My role to ensure accused punished, behaviour corrected
believe 90 days appropriate
int. [intermittent] appropriate;
16. In May, 1993, the Applicant reunited with his elder son Saurob, and Saurob continues to live with his parents in Scarborough today.
David Gorrell’s Testimony at the Goudge Inquiry;
17. Our office has spoken to Mr. Gorrell about his representation of the Applicant at his trial and, on February 8, 2008, Mr. Gorrell testified on a panel at the Goudge Inquiry. On the panel with him were:
● John Strothers, barrister and solicitor, who had between 1998 and 2001 represented a mother charged with murder after Dr. Smith had conducted an autopsy on her daughter and reported findings that she had died as a result of blunt head trauma. The charge had been stayed on the opening day of her trial.
● Bruce Hillyer, barrister and solicitor, who had between 1996 and 1999 represented a mother charged with murder after Dr. Smith had conducted an autopsy on her son and reported findings of suffocation and a fractured skull. The mother had, in essence, pleaded nolo contendere at her trial to a charge of Infanticide and been convicted accordingly.
18. Mr. Gorrell retained a hospital pathologist, Dr. Jay Naidoo of the Queensway General Hospital, to review Dr. Smith’s findings.
Dr. Naidoo verbally advised Mr. Gorrell that he agreed with Dr. Smith’s conclusions, and consequently was not asked to provide a written report for counsel.
19. Mr. Gorrell recalls that immediately following the Applicant’s release, the assigned crown offered to consider a plea to criminal negligence causing death, with the possibility of no time in prison for the Applicant.
Mr. Gorrell was taken by surprise, and given no explanation for the offer, which he says came out of the blue.
After several meetings with Mr. Gorrell and several weeks considering his options, he recalls that the Applicant decided to accept the plea, for a sentence of 90 days to be served on weekends.
20. According to Mr. Gorrell, the Applicant maintained his innocence from the outset of his case, until the very point he attended Mr. Gorrell’s office to provide him with written instructions to the contrary, and to accept the Crown’s offer.
The Applicant had previously denied any involvement in his son’s death in all of his interviews with the police, and in all of his consultations with Mr. Gorrell and Mr. Kissoon, who also worked on the file.
During his testimony at the Inquiry, Mr. Gorrell described the Applicant’s situation as follows:
This was a man with no record – a new immigrant to this country, a wife with a brain tumor, a job. He was a contributing member of society, and all of a sudden an atomic bomb goes off in his life – murder 2. You have to tell him because they always ask, what’s the penalty, and you say, life with a minimum penalty of ten years – ten years…his whole life would be shattered.
Just to continue with this, what – I said, my heart went out to Gaurov’s father. I don’t know how I’d – I’d act in this situation if I had someone like Mr. Struthers (sic) saying well, you can get 90 days on weekends. After remission, that’s 60 days. That’s a maximum of 15 weekends. The Mimico Jail is jammed, so you’ll wind up doing only three or four or five. You can do that, or you can sit in the courtroom and be judged by everybody with a risk, with Charles Smith up there with a mantle of Sick Kids on his shoulder. You can go to jail. You can go to jail on manslaughter.
I really didn’t think a murder was in the cards, but you can go to jail on a manslaughter. What decision would I make? I’m pretty sure I’d make the decision he made even if I were not guilty. But as his lawyer, I’m the only person in the whole scenario that doesn’t judge him. The police judge him when they charge him. The Crown judges him when they prosecute him. The Judge judges him, the jury judges him, the press judges him.
When he says, I want to plead guilty, and I will sign on the dotted line, and I did it, I’m not going to tell him, no, sir, you’re going to face the trial and if you get eight years, that’s for the greater good of justice.
I took his instructions and I – I would not be at all surprised, with the stress that man was under at the time, if he was doing it out of expediency.
Mr. Gorrell continued:
… this was a plea which I, if I had been in his position, would have accepted, guilty or not.
Q. So you’d have been prepared to say you were guilty in order to accept the plea?
A. And I wouldn’t second-guess a person who did… my job as a lawyer was to make sure that he knew exactly what he was charged with; knew his alternatives; knew his choices; and then make sure he’s unequivocal in what he instructs me to do. But I’m not his judge.
21. Mr. Gorrell prepared a plea “Direction” for the Applicant. In the Direction, he set out a summary of the Crown’s case and continued:
I understand that if the matter went to trial, the Crown might be hard pressed to win a conviction on a charge of Second Degree murder, but would be far more likely to win a conviction on a charge of Manslaughter. The charge of Manslaughter carries no minimum punishment, but after a trial, I understand that if I were convicted of Manslaughter I would likely face a term of incarceration measured in years.
The Direction referred to Dr. Naidoo’s verbal opinion that “in fact the evidence that this baby died of shaken baby syndrome is overwhelming.”
It outlined the Crown’s offer of a plea to Manslaughter accompanied by a joint submission that he should not receive a prison sentence.
Paragraph 8 of the Direction stated:
I understand that for any plea bargain to be acceptable, I must be prepared to admit to you, my counsel, and to the court that through recklessness or otherwise, I caused the death of Gaurov Kumar. I understand that no one at this point is alleging that I intentionally set out to cause the death of the child, but only that I, by grievous error, did that.
An Addendum to the Direction added the following:
Addendum – I further understand that there may be immigration consequences, should I resolve the matter by way of plea bargain as aforesaid, and that you, my counsel, cannot offer any assurances that the Canadian Government will not take action to deport me as a result of this matter. However, I understand it is your opinion that I would have a good chance of successfully resisting deportation under the circumstances of this case.
There was no signed copy of the Direction in Mr. Gorrell’s file.
Presumably the final version was amended in some regards insofar as it did not reflect the eventual plea negotiated between Crown and defence and entered by the Applicant.
22. According to Mr. Gorrell, the Applicant was under enormous stress, having just moved to Canada, being unable to speak English, trying to hold a new job to support his family, caring for his extremely ill wife, and dealing with the tragic death of one son and subsequent apprehension by Children’s Aid of the other.
Mr. Gorrell believes that one of the main reasons the Applicant pled guilty may have been to ensure that his family could remain together, and to avoid losing custody of his surviving son forever.
In an exchange at the Inquiry, he remarked:
Q. So in essence, there was a further carrot there, dangled in front of – of Gaurov’s father –
A. There was a whole –
Q. -- to enter a plea?
A. -- there was a whole salad.
Q. Because he’d get his other child back.
A. That’s right…
Mr. Gorrell further noted that the Applicant ran the risk of deportation had he been convicted of second degree murder or manslaughter and he so advised the Applicant.
23. Looking back at what transpired in the Applicant’s case, Mr. Gorrell feels to this day that, given the alternative of life in jail, he would not second guess the Applicant’s decision to plead guilty.
The case rested solely on two things: exclusive opportunity and the expert opinion of Dr. Smith.
He believes he made clear to the Applicant that Dr. Smith would be a formidable expert witness to confront. In his words:
[The Applicant] was caught up in something bigger than himself, and we know about it. That’s why we’re all here… it was the early days. He was one of the pioneers in this particular situation and he was facing the problem first – or among the first. And had he attempted to assert his innocence, plead not guilty, put the Crown to the proof of its case, it could have been disastrous for him…I would have had to find pathologists who disagree with Dr. Smith.
24. Our office has also spoken with the Applicant’s second lawyer, Dhaman Kissoon, who was retained early on by the Applicant, and continued to represent him as junior counsel after asking David Gorrell to assist him on the case.
Mr. Kissoon recalls that in each conversation he had with the Applicant, including after he was presented with the proposed resolution, he categorically denied any involvement in his son’s death.
Mr. Kissoon recalls that the Applicant was extremely concerned about the welfare of his wife, who was still quite ill, and for his surviving son, and who would care for them if he was sent to jail.
He also recalls that Detective Prisor, the lead investigator on the case, had promised not to “red flag” his file if he pleaded guilty to Criminal Negligence Causing Death, a consideration which would greatly reduce the likelihood of the Applicant being deported.
The Applicant’s Account of His Plea;
25. The Applicant himself states in his affidavit that, at the time Gaurov died, he was under a great deal of stress, and was overwhelmed by the loss of a son whom he loved dearly.
He was a recent immigrant to Canada, could not speak English well, and was trying to adjust to life in a new country.
His wife’s illness took a great toll on him emotionally, and there was an even greater burden on him to care for his family than he had had before.
Gaurov’s death was devastating.
Immediately after Gaurov died, his other son, Saurob, was taken away by the Children’s Aid Society and placed in the care of relatives.
The Applicant did his best to help the police with their investigation.
From the outset, he explained the circumstances leading to his son’s death, hoping to be provided with answers as to why he had died.
Each time he spoke to investigators, he emphatically denied any wrongdoing in relation to Gaurov’s death.
26. When he was charged with murdering his son, the Applicant felt extremely confused, ashamed, distressed, and concerned for the well-being of his wife and surviving son.
He continued to deny any involvement in Gaurov’s death.
When his lawyers told him about the plea he was being offered by the Crown, they told him it was an excellent offer, and explained to him that even a conviction for manslaughter would almost certainly result in a sentence of several years in prison.
They explained to him the evidence against him, and the expert opinion of Dr. Smith, whom they described as a “God” in child deaths.
They explained the consequences on his status in Canada – if convicted of murder or manslaughter he was almost certain to be deported, but if he accepted the plea offer, he would likely be able to remain in Canada with his family.
27. Above all, the Applicant decided to accept the plea in order to retain custody of his surviving son, Saurob.
He understood that once he resolved the charges, the Children’s Aid Society would eventually agree to return Saurob to the family.
Having already lost one child, he could not conceive of losing his only other son. In a letter to the Applicant’s present counsel, dated January 29, 2008, the Children’s Aid Society provided some insight into Saurob’s state while he was in foster care:
The foster parent described Saurob as an easy child to care for. During his time in foster care, Saurob visited with his parents and other relatives.
The foster parent reported that Saurob would whine most of the time during these visits.
It was felt that 17 months old Saurob was experiencing trauma as he was missing his parents and grieving for them, and because he was suddenly placed in totally unfamiliar and culturally different surroundings where there was even a language difference.
This situation appeared to be very stressful for Saurob.
However, Saurob appeared to be a rather healthy child.
Applicant’s Record, Tab 17
On April 3, 1992, Saurob was placed in the care and custody of relatives.
By May, 1993, CAS was satisfied that Saurob could return to the custody of both parents:
Saurob and his primary caregiver returned from India in May 1993, and the parents subsequently reunited.
There was no indication of volatility, or potential dangerous behaviour on the parents’ part toward Saurob.
Saurob was seen as a secure and well-cared for child in his parents’ care.
The Kumar family file was terminated on September 7, 1993.
28. The Applicant also felt an enormous responsibility to be able to keep his job and continue to support his family.
The Applicant has stated that pleading guilty to causing the death of his son, Gaurov, something that he did not do, was the hardest decision he has ever had to make, and one that he has thought about every day since.
He has always vehemently denied that he ever did anything to cause his baby’s death.
Next Post: Affidavit of Craig continued: "Developments in the Case from 2005 to the Present: The Proposed Fresh Evidence;"