BREAKING NEWS: PART 413 I can't help myself. I already had written a post for today and it, Part 412, is found just below this present entry. I hope you read that too, but right now something of great significance must have your attention. It may or may not presently affect the Bayne Case as the judge concludes his writing of the decision for their case. This piece of news concerns Shaken Baby Syndrome and it's validity as a justifiable cause for action taken against givers of care to a child who has either been injured or dies from injuries that have heretofore been classified as categorically attributable only to SBS.
 |
| Dr. Charles Smith at Goudge Inquiry / photo:Adrian Wyld |
I was alerted late last night in an email as well as
by a comment to yesterday's blog post 411 that a hugely significant legal statement about SBS had been made in Toronto yesterday and I want you to read it. I want Judge Crabtree to read it. I want all parents who have similarly been either charged with or wrongly suspected of SBS to read this. I want Mr. McNeill to read this and legal counsel Finn Jensen to read this and Mr. Loren Humeny and Mr. Berhe Gulbot to read this. While each of these people may have acted in good faith within the authorization of their respective roles, each must now conscientiously begin to explore the possibility that the SBS diagnosis as a blanket or conclusive explanation for the classic triad of injuries is no longer unquestionably valid and perhaps not at all. There are too many other possible medical explanations for the same set of injuries. That has been the Baynes' contention from the start. They had to work against all odds to locate and to subscribe the medical opinions of ten reputable medical experts to contest the initial SBS diagnosis. That should have been MCFD case workers' jobs. It should have been a concern of Mr. Jensen to verify before taking twenty-two days in court to argue it as reason to keep three children from their parents forever, two of the children not even being the subject victims of the SBS allegation.
So here is the news that broke yesterday in Toronto. This excerpt from CityNews.
“
Both the Crown and defence lawyers are seeking an acquittal for a man they believe was wrongly convicted of his baby’s death nearly two decades ago, based on evidence presented by the now-disgraced Dr. Charles Smith. Smith testified 19 years ago that Dinesh Kumar’s five-week-old son Gaurov died of shaken baby syndrome. At the time Smith was lauded as one of the best in the field of child pathology, but is now disgraced following the findings of a 2008 Goudge inquiry into his work. Smith’s conclusions in the case are no longer scientifically valid. Kumar, originally charged with second-degree murder, is represented by lawyer James Lockyer, who says his client agreed to pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death to avoid deportation to India. The Crown and defence have filed a request with the Court of Appeal for Ontario to have the conviction set aside. A hearing is scheduled for Jan. 17.” The handwriting is on the wall – plain enough to be read by everyone. Do not be confused by some medical term modification, from SBS to Non Accidental (traumatic) Injury. Given the variant opinions, it must not be assumed that same triad of symptoms automatically implicate guilt of parents in willfully harming their child. With respect to the Kumar story, some conflict appears. One news source tells us that "
The Crown also says it “does not accept” criticism that shaken baby syndrome is a discredited theory. It remains to be seen whether the court will" (
Toronto Star).
Another source says,
"Crown attorney Gillian Roberts writes in court filings, '... the medical evidence on which the case was based in 1992 reflected the prevailing views of the day” (
Hamilton Spectator, Alison Jones).
Now the fact is that the affidavit submitted by the Director of MCFD Fraser Valley Region and written by one of his social workers, states clearly that MCFD action is based in the Bayne Case upon the SBS diagnosis of a Children's Hospital pediatrician. It was inevitable that one or more such cases as the one cited in the news article would eventually come to light and would change opinions. The Bayne Case should be the next one. Judge Crabtree delivers his decision within nine days (Jan 19 at the latest).
It's now 8:22 am and I have just located
a fuller account by Globe and Mail writer Kirk Makin, written yesterday. From it I have taken these sections."
In a court document unsealed Friday, Crown counsel Gillian Roberts said that changes in medical knowledge about infant brain injuries have seriously undermined Mr. Kumar’s conviction. She said that in view of medical controversy that surrounds the notion of shaken baby syndrome, 'no reasonable jury could convict the appellant of any form of homicide in relation to his son, Gaurov....the prevailing understanding of that medical knowledge has changed. ' ”
In fact here is an entire Google page of indexed references to this story. Twenty two additional news sources, some from same network or authors.
Related CityNews Stories
Charges Withdrawn In Child Death Case Involving Pathologist Dr. Charles Smith
Man Wrongly Convicted Of Killing 4-Year-Old Niece Paid $4.25 Million
People Wrongfully Convicted On Testimony Of Dr. Charles Smith To Be Compensated
Woman Acquitted In Infant Son's Death
Disgraced Pathologist Apologizes For "Mistakes"
