"In a brief to the court on behalf of the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, lawyers James Lockyer and Alison Craig focused the blame for Mr. Brant's conviction squarely on disgraced forensic pathologist Charles Smith.
They said Dr. Smith seriously erred when he concluded that Dustin was a victim of shaken baby syndrome. Moreover, his finding contradicted that of neuropathologist Sukrita Nag, who conducted the original autopsy and concluded that Dustin most likely died of pneumonia.
"The evidence is clear that Dustin died of natural causes," Mr. Lockyer told reporters yesterday. "In my view, it isn't enough to stay the charges. The conviction should be quashed and a verdict of acquittal entered.""
JUSTICE REPORTER KIRK MAKIN; THE GLOBE AND MAIL;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: (GLOBE AND MAIL); Richard Brant was convicted of aggravated assault in 1995 for the death of his two-month-old son, Dustin. Mr. Brant was taking Dustin for a walk when he noticed red foam around the baby’s nose. Dustin died two days later, on Nov. 18, 1992. (Then) Dr. Smith (but since struck from the register of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) concluded Dustin had been shaken to death, despite the fact that the baby’s brain had rotted away after morgue staff mistakenly left it in a container of water. His findings contradicted the findings of a neuropathologist who had examined the child’s brain and concluded he had likely died of pneumonia. Mr. Brant said he felt compelled to plead guilty to aggravated assault to avoid a possible manslaughter conviction. He conceded he had accidentally jostled Dustin during a physical struggle with his wife. In January, 2009, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted Mr. Brant permission to reopen the case and fight his conviction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Globe and Mail story by Justice Reporter Kirk Makin ran in today's paper (January 7, 2009) under the heading "Court allows appeal in 'shaken baby' death," and sub-heading, "Proclaiming his innocence, Richard Brant says he pleaded guilty only because he feared now-disgraced pathologist Charles Smith."
"New Brunswick man Richard Brant was granted permission by the Ontario Court of Appeal yesterday to reopen and fight his criminal conviction for shaking his infant son to death in 1993, "Makin's story began.
""The applicant has explained the delay and there is obvious merit to the appeal," Mr. Justice Marc Rosenberg said yesterday at the conclusion of a brief hearing," the story continued;
"In a telephone interview from a halfway house in Moncton, Mr. Brant expressed optimism that his ordeal of being reviled as a baby-killer will soon end.
"It sure hasn't been an easy thing," Mr. Brant, 36, said. "I know myself that I never did anything. You just wonder, and never get any answers. It's a constant thought. It's something that doesn't leave my mind."
Mr. Brant said the rumours and innuendo surrounding the sudden death of his two-month-old son Dustin eventually drove him away from friends and family. "That was a big part of why I left Ontario years ago," he said. "With the conviction, it just put it into everybody's head that I had done something."
Dustin died on Nov. 19, 1992. Mr. Brant had been the only person around Dustin in his final hours, and suspicion fell upon him.
In a brief to the court on behalf of the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, lawyers James Lockyer and Alison Craig focused the blame for Mr. Brant's conviction squarely on disgraced forensic pathologist Charles Smith.
They said Dr. Smith seriously erred when he concluded that Dustin was a victim of shaken baby syndrome. Moreover, his finding contradicted that of neuropathologist Sukrita Nag, who conducted the original autopsy and concluded that Dustin most likely died of pneumonia.
"The evidence is clear that Dustin died of natural causes," Mr. Lockyer told reporters yesterday. "In my view, it isn't enough to stay the charges. The conviction should be quashed and a verdict of acquittal entered."
Mr. Brant recalled yesterday that he was shocked when his trial lawyer urged him to accept a plea bargain rather than risk going up against a pathologist who was viewed as "a god" in his field.
"I knew in my own head that I was right," Mr. Brant said. "But this man had so much credibility and so many things going for him. At that time in my life, I was just a young kid. I was in trouble before with the law. I had no credibility.
"At the time, I had another girlfriend and she was pregnant," Mr. Brant added. "I was afraid of losing that child. And they [the Crown] were asking for 15 years."
He pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and spent six months in jail.
Yesterday's hearing before Judge Rosenberg was brief and straightforward. Crown counsel Alison Wheeler said the Crown agreed that the case ought to be reopened.
Mr. Brant, who has two daughters, a stepdaughter and a stepson, is completing a sentence for robbery at the Moncton halfway house.
He said Dr. Smith's role in the case continues to upset him, "but where does that get me? So, I try to think that people make mistakes. But then again, they are making mistakes with other people's lives - and mine just happens to be one where there was a very big mistake made."
Mr. Brant said he hopes to be in the Ontario Court of Appeal when his case is heard, which could be as early as this spring.
"Yes, I know the system isn't perfect," he said. "But for the most part, it does work, and it has turned around now. I can't wait. I finally want the truth to come out. Being exonerated would make me feel just so, so good.""
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Labor’s 30 pieces of voting silver
11 hours ago
