“The trouble was that the attempt of an explanation somehow became fact, became science — when it wasn’t,”he said. Smith’s “reputation went beyond police and Crown and judges, it seemed to have affected defence lawyers of the day. If Smith said something, it was almost bound to be right.”
He said his client does not blame the Canadian justice system for the wrongful conviction.
“It can come back so long after the event, and say it got things wrong,” said Mr. Lockyer. “That’s a blessing of the judicial system. It doesn’t do away the 18 years that Denish has been through, but boy, it does a heck of a lot for him.”"
REPORTER LINDA NGUYEN: THE NATIONAL POST;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dinesh Kumar was exonerated IN JANUARY 20, 2011 - even though he had pleaded guilty in 1992 to criminal negligence causing his son Gaurov's death in order to avoid a murder conviction at the hands of the then revered Dr. Charles Randal Smith. The Crown joined with defence counsel in seeking the quashing of that conviction and a verdict of acquittal. This Blog ran a series of nine posts in May and June 2008 to highlight this tragic, disturbing case and see what could be learned from it. Justice was delayed so long for Mr. Kumar and his family. (Almost twenty years); They should have been treated with sympathy as mourning parents. Instead they were thrust into a hellish existence after Dr. Charles Smith became involved in their lives. Indeed, Justice Marc Rosenberg acknowledged the "terrible toll" the ordeal had exacted on Mr. Kumar and his family over almost twenty years - and said the Court understood why Mr. Kumar had felt compelled to plead guilty to a criminal offence he had not committed. The Court accepted the fresh evidence, quashed the conviction and entered an acquittal. The written decision is to be released shortly and will be published in full on the Charles Smith Blog. Of particular interest will be whether the Court of Appeal will accede to defence lawyer James Lockyer's request for a ruling that Shaken Baby Syndrome, once considered a "diagnosis" has been shown through developments in forensic pathology to be no more than a "hypothesis." (The Crown is seeking a narrow ruling that does not focus directly on the validity of shaken baby syndrome); Mr. Kumar and his family deserved much better from our criminal justice system. I wish them well.
HAROLD LEVY: PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TORONTO — A Toronto man who admitted, under a “multitude of pressures,” to killing his five-week-old son nearly 20 years ago, could barely stop crying Thursday when he was officially cleared of the death by the Ontario Court of Appeal," the National Post story by reporter Linda Nguyen filed on January 20, 2011 under the heading, "Ontario man acquitted in death of infant son," begins.
"For almost two decades, Dinesh Kumar, 44, endured being known as a baby killer when he was charged with second-degree murder in 1992 after his infant son, Gaurov, died," the story continues.
"Despite his innocence, Mr. Kumar, who had only been in Canada for two years, pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of criminal negligence causing death in exchange for a lenient sentence of 90 days in jail.
“I can’t explain what kind of life I had before,” said Mr. Kumar, tears streaming down his face outside the Toronto courthouse. “And now, it’s totally different. It was like a big burden (off) . . . my shoulders.”
Mr. Kumar was under a “multitude of pressures” when he made the plea, his lawyer wrote in court filings, not the least of which was the expert opinion of now-disgraced pathologist Dr. Charles Smith.
Mr. Kumar always maintained his innocence and has since said his guilty plea was based on fears about losing his family and about the testimony of Dr. Smith, then a renowned Ontario pathologist.
Dr. Smith concluded Gaurov died of shaken-baby syndrome. But in new material filed with the appeal court, new opinions from various medical experts have found that Smith’s conclusion is no longer scientifically valid.
A recent judicial inquiry into Dr. Smith’s work also found that his testimony was responsible, in part, for several people being wrongfully convicted of killing children and being sentenced to prison.
Mr. Kumar, who was heading straight to a temple to pray, said his faith pulled him through, even when his community turned on him.
“They’re pointing on my back (saying): ‘This is that guy who killed his own son,’” he said. “I’m very happy now. I’m going to get that letter and I’m going to put it in my community temples so people know that I’m not a killer. I’m innocent.”
His wife, Veena Kumar, who stayed with him throughout the ordeal, also provided him his strength.
“She is always with me,” said Mr. Kumar. “She stands beside me. She gives me all the power that Ihave so I can manage this.”
Pulling out a wallet photo of his son, Mr. Kumar continued to cry, barely able to speak.
“It’s always with me until Idie,” he said of the photo of the smiling baby. “It will always stay with me.”
Mr. Kumar’s lawyer, James Lockyer, said his client will seek compensation through a fund set up for people wrongly convicted based on testimony by Dr. Smith.
“I had no doubt in my mind that he was innocent,” said Mr. Lockyer. “I thought it was a terrible miscarriage of justice. On one hand, you can say he served 90 days on the weekends in jail — but that’s really missing the point. This had a devastating effect on him as a person, on him and his family.”
Three years ago when Mr. Lockyer took on Mr. Kumar’s case, he warned the grieving father that he might not want to relive the past.
“I will always remember his reaction. I asked him, ‘The last thing you may want to do is dig this up. It’s old history . . . if you don’t want me involved, let me know,’” said Mr. Lockyer. “He said, ‘Mr. Lockyer, I think of Gaurov every day of my life.’”
Mr. Lockyer, who is the founding director for the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, said 20 years ago, the theory offered to explain shaken-baby syndrome was “en vogue.”
“The trouble was that the attempt of an explanation somehow became fact, became science — when it wasn’t,”he said. Smith’s “reputation went beyond police and Crown and judges, it seemed to have affected defence lawyers of the day. If Smith said something, it was almost bound to be right.”
He said his client does not blame the Canadian justice system for the wrongful conviction.
“It can come back so long after the event, and say it got things wrong,” said Mr. Lockyer. “That’s a blessing of the judicial system. It doesn’t do away the 18 years that Denish has been through, but boy, it does a heck of a lot for him.”"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/20/ontario-man-acquitted-in-death-of-infant-son/#ixzz1BcQ4Yugw
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 accessed 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;
