Dear Editor,
I write in regard to the article which appeared in the Sunday Observer dated May 19, 2013 under the headline 'Nigerian-born dentist was on criminal charge'.
In the article, reference is made to an incident which occurred in July 2007 at the office of Dr Ogunsalu and it states that the source of the information was a newspaper report. Your newspaper, in giving prominence to Dr Ogunsalu, sought to rely on facts which are incorrect and which make for an erroneous view of the character of the doctor.
The reality is that Pauline Graham did assert that she had been assaulted and beaten all over her body by the doctor. However, at the end of the case for the prosecution a no-case submission was made on the doctor's behalf that the complainant (Graham in this case) had been so manifestly discredited in cross-examination that no reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could come to a decision adverse to the doctor.
The submission was upheld by the trial judge and the doctor was duly acquitted without having to state a defence. This was the basis upon which this case was decided and no other.
For your paper to insinuate any other reason only reflects the disdain with which the media regards the truth, especially in matters before the courts.
Incidentally, the accuracy of my recollection is based on the fact that I represented Doctor Ogunsalu in the matter in 2007 and I do have a case file with notes to refresh my memory.
Further, it is my understanding that when persons are acquitted attempts should not be made to use those circumstances as a basis to malign that person's character.
In the circumstances your reporter should correct this erroneous article as it contains innuendoes that are clearly designed to give the reader a negative view of the character Dr Ogunsalu.
Trevor E Ho-Lyn
Attorney-at-law
Montego Bay
St James
I write in regard to the article which appeared in the Sunday Observer dated May 19, 2013 under the headline 'Nigerian-born dentist was on criminal charge'.
In the article, reference is made to an incident which occurred in July 2007 at the office of Dr Ogunsalu and it states that the source of the information was a newspaper report. Your newspaper, in giving prominence to Dr Ogunsalu, sought to rely on facts which are incorrect and which make for an erroneous view of the character of the doctor.
The reality is that Pauline Graham did assert that she had been assaulted and beaten all over her body by the doctor. However, at the end of the case for the prosecution a no-case submission was made on the doctor's behalf that the complainant (Graham in this case) had been so manifestly discredited in cross-examination that no reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could come to a decision adverse to the doctor.
The submission was upheld by the trial judge and the doctor was duly acquitted without having to state a defence. This was the basis upon which this case was decided and no other.
For your paper to insinuate any other reason only reflects the disdain with which the media regards the truth, especially in matters before the courts.
Incidentally, the accuracy of my recollection is based on the fact that I represented Doctor Ogunsalu in the matter in 2007 and I do have a case file with notes to refresh my memory.
Further, it is my understanding that when persons are acquitted attempts should not be made to use those circumstances as a basis to malign that person's character.
In the circumstances your reporter should correct this erroneous article as it contains innuendoes that are clearly designed to give the reader a negative view of the character Dr Ogunsalu.
Trevor E Ho-Lyn
Attorney-at-law
Montego Bay
St James