Saturday, January 22, 2011

EXONERATED / Part 427 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

PostMedia News Photo of Dinesh Kumar

The National Post ran this story on Thursday. Mr. Dinesh Kumar is now 44 years old but twenty years ago he was accused of killing his five week old son. It was the now notoriously inaccurate Ontario pathologist, Dr. Charles Smith, who concluded that the infant named Gaurov died as a result of shaken baby syndrome. On Thursday the Ontario Court of Appeal cleared this poor suffering man of all liability in his son's death. Of course, his case was compounded by the fact that 20 years ago he was subjected to such intense investigatory pressure that he could no longer take it, so he confessed to taking his son's life. He was initially charged with second degree murder but when he pleased guilty , it was to a lesser charge of criminal negligence causing death. For two decades he has lived with the shame, the sentence, the ostracism, the record of being a baby killer, when in fact he was innocent.

Confession is precisely what the MCFD Team here in B.C. has expected and initially sought to extract from the Baynes with regard to injuries sustained by their several week old infant daughter over three years ago. When that confession was not offered but rather a resounding declaration of innocence in every early meeting with them, the MCFD became entrenched in a combative posture that has been well demonstrated by the wording of risk assessments and affidavits and cross examinations.

Now listen to an extract of the Kumar case as it is reported by Linda Nguyen of the National Post. She writes, “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.” Lawyer James Lockyer took on Mr. Kumar's case three years ago,. Mr. Lockyer is the founding director for the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted. He 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... 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.”

The Baynes' child did not die. They are so thankful for that yet nonetheless, in their case parents have again borne blame for conditions of injury to their child because the title of the diagnosis itself implicates non accidental injury. MCFD practitioners have been willing to depend exclusively on a doctor's SBS diagnosis, well in fact, the Director himself said that his affidavit in support of the Continuing Care Application rested solely upon the pediatrician's SBS diagnosis. Apparently in B.C. there is a medical consensus that SBS is still 'en vogue.” No one within MCFD sought to think outside this strict designation by seeking other opinions. It was left to Zabeth and Paul themselves to uncover medical experts who disagree with the blanket SBS diagnosis and certainly disagree that it should apply in this case.That contradictory evidence by the way is building daily and annually in the medical arena and appears only appropriate that this well publicized Bayne Case shall conclude with a Judge dismissing the validity of SBS as a justification for the treatment of this entire family.

Not for a moment is anyone saying that to question SBS is to turn on a green light for child abusers and shakers. Rather the opposition is to the use of a triad of injuries as an automatic guilty conviction if not criminally then certainly practically within the framework of a child protection system with the legal interruptive, invasionary power like that bestowed upon MCFD through the CFCSA. Any way one slices this kind of case, the RCMP could find no substantive evidence that warranted a charge of any kind, and the medical diagnosis also came without actual evidence of culpability. The suspicion that arises from the grave physical conditions of an injured child is not the equivalent of evidence, and even the suspicion must be set aside when the resultant diagnosis is one which is increasingly disputed because the injuries may be consistent with accident or one of various other conditions or diseases.


  1. I always compare it to those who declared the Earth FLAT when we all know now that it is round. Before this was widely accepted the "experts" felt the Earth was flat and probably once it was proven differently it still took time for the "flat" believers to accept or admit they were wrong and sure many may never have.. When one is trained like that..even when proven round..habit and ingrained subconsciousness revert them back to thinking it "flat". Thank you sir for bringing focus back in the factual realm of "round".

  2. To the Writer in Victoria Today.

    Everyone wants to fight this morning. If you can't fight MCFD hand to hand then you want to fight me or anyone whom you can call names. I understand that this is part of the territory I have carved for myself in being an online advocate. A couple of you however, are not going to get printed today. One of you lives in Victoria and sent two comments today, one at 8:41 and the other at 9:17 am and you worked pretty hard on these because you spent considerable time at them. I will give you a hint as to your identity and I will tell you that both of your submissions are unacceptable to me.

    First your wrote, “The police, RCMP, judges, lawyers, MCFD politicians, MCFD directors, social workers, MCFD paid 'foster parents', family development workers ALL HAVE THE SAME GOAL: KILL, STEAL & DESTROY.” Oh it got worse and you did your holy rant, but listen to me, that was not evangelism, that was a mad prophet. It's not going to have a place here.

    Your second note addressed Diane Holden's admirable suggestion of collecting names of injured parents so that an MLA can bring that to the Legislature. But here again you began with “Ron, it's time for you & for BC parents to stop being 'cowards' as God in the book of Revelation puts 'cowards' in the same catagory of 'the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those practising magic arts [yes folks I'm afraid WITCHES are REAL & many live in Victoria], idolators, and LIARS.” Then you proceed to volunteer to help Diane collect names and you have other suggestions. I hope she doesn't accept your help. For all your scripture references and pious platitudes your last line was captilaized and said, “IT'S WAY BEYOND TIME...For CHRIST's SAKE ALL IN BC SHOULD BE FIGHTING AS IF THE BAYNES CHILDREN WERE YOUR CHILDREN,...CAUSE YOUR CHILDREN ARE NEXT!!!!”

    And you wanted me to publish your entire lengthy harangue. You must be kidding. I know who you are by the way, this was not helpful to me or you.

  3. One of the things which bothers me regarding Charles Smith was the fact that so many must have collaborated with him in his obviously fraudulent diagnosis, which he claims were "mistakes," yet only Smith faced (minimal)consequences.

    It's important to note that Charles Smith, apart from a relatively brief period of media scrutiny and some professional consequences really faced no punishment, whereas his victims lost everything, including their children (e.g., the parents that lost their remaining children to Children's Aid Society because Charles Smith's testimony, largely, helped send them to jail for murder).

    It's also important to note that Charles Smith is currently living in Victoria, BC, with a woman who is, apparently, getting substantial sums of money to do what may be child protection-related work. I read this somewhere and can't find the info now, but perhaps other readers could.

    Here's a blog on Charles Smith that readers may find of interest:

    If anyone wants to email the publisher of the smithforensic blog (e.g., to inform him about the Bayne case, which is of course very relevant to the smithforensic blog), here is the info:

    "For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:

    Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;"

  4. I'm not sure if my previous posting went through, but what I really wanted to convey was this: Readers of Ron's blog, please contact the writer of the Charles Smith blog and request that he write about the Bayne case. Here is the contact info:

    Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;;

    For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies (the Charles Smith) Blog is currently following, please turn to:

  5. As well, contact:

    Liberal Party Leadership Candidates
    Moira Stilwell -
    George Abbott -
    Kevin Falcon -
    Mike de Jong -
    Christy Clark -

    NDP Leadership Candidates
    Nicholas Simons -
    Mike Farnworth –
    John Horgan -
    Dwn Black -

  6. I noticed a Vancouver Sun story Friday on the results of a review of deaths of children in care:

    Death reviews show government failed to protect children
    BY LINDSAY KINES, POSTMEDIA NEWS, Fri. January 21, 2011

    There is nothing complimentary in the story towards MCFD. An MCFD spokesman responds saying recruitment is a problem in remote communities, presumably where most of the deaths occur.

  7. Anon at January 22, 2011 11:29 PM,

    The story may not exactly be complimentary to MCFD, but it does serve to promote the idea that the problems within MCFD could be solved, if only they had more money and more social workers, which is pretty much what MCFD loves to hear.


I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise