"FRESH EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF NEW MEDICAL EVIDENCE IS NOW AVAILABLE WHICH ESTABLISHES THAT THE DECEASED BABY, GAUROV KUMAR, LIKELY DIED FROM ACCIDENTAL OR NATURAL CAUSES AND SHOULD BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE ON APPEAL;"
NOTICE OF APPEAL: ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dinesh Kumar is one step close to exoneration - even though he 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 has put the Ontario Court of Appeal on notice is that it will be seeking an acquittal when the case comes before the Court later this month. 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. I am running a retrospective of all of these posts on a daily basis in connection with Mr. Kumar's upcoming hearing before the Ontario Court of Appeal.
HAROLD LEVY: PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dinesh Kumar's fight for exoneration after sixteen years is now before the Ontario Court of Appeal," the post begins, under the heading, "Gaurov's father: Spotlight on the Ontario Court of Appeal."
"To its credit, the Ontario Government has agreed that the appeal has merit - and has not put any obstacles in its way," the post continues.
"To this writer's knowledge, at the moment more than a dozen cases involving Dr. Charles Smith have been filed in the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Mr. Kumar is appealing his conviction on the following grounds:
0: Fresh evidence in the form of new medical evidence is now available which establishes that the deceased baby, Gaurov Kumar, likely died from accidental or natural causes and should be admitted into evidence on appeal;
0: There was no absence of due diligence on the part of the defence at trial.
0: Leave should be granted to the Appellant to withdraw his plea of guilty, and,
(0) The fresh evidence is such that to sustain the Appellant’s conviction would amount to a miscarriage of justice.
In a nutshell, he is asking the Court to admit the fresh evidence, grant leave to withdraw his plea of guilty should be granted, quash the conviction, and enter a verdict of acquittal.
A date has not yet been set for the appeal."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2008/05/part-six-gaurovs-father-spotlight-on.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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;
