Video: Kumra Murder Defendant's Mother Says Daughter Is Innocent

Speaking outside the San Jose Hall of Justice Monday, Alameda resident Sandra Mitchell pleads for her daughter's release.

The mother, pastor and attorney of the only woman defendant in the murder case of Monte Sereno businessman Raveesh 'Ravi' Kumra told reporters Monday afternoon that Raven Chanel Dixon is innocent of the charges against her.

Dixon, 22, has been accused as being an accessory to Kumra's Nov. 30 murder with a gang enhancement.

She was

Alameda resident Sandra Mitchell said the allegations against her daughter are ludicrous and called the case a "circus." She pledged to stand by her.

Pastor Derrick Mann described her as a "Christian, God-fearing loving beautiful young lady."

Her attorney, John Ambrosio, said arguing on behalf of Dixon has been like "arguing against a wall" because he hasn't received any records related to the case, other than the criminal complaint.

Ambrosio said any relationship Dixon had with Kumra, professional or personal, was not damaging.

Kumra, 66, the former owner of The Mountain Winery in Saratoga, was slain the early morning of Nov. 30 in his Monte Sereno mansion.

Three men are being held in Santa Clara County Jail on no-bail warrants and have been charged with six felony counts of murder, assault, criminal threats, false imprisonment, robbery and residential burglary in the murder-robbery of Kumra.

Mitchell said Dixon's supporters have created a website www.freeravendixon.org to help contribute to her defense. "I have the best daughter in the world ... and that stands. I love her."

Mitchell said her daughter is "broken" over what happened to Kumra. "She was just really devastated. I pray for her and I'm asking everyone to even pray for Ravi Kumra's family as well as our family and everyone involved."

Dixon doesn't know the three men charged in the case with the murder, Mitchell added.

The website does say Dixon "maintained a professional relationship with Kumra for seven years."

CALIFROSE February 05, 2013 at 04:54 PM
Hmm at 16 she was involved in her profession, and you want to say she's innocent! Really??!!
Urban Oracle March 20, 2013 at 06:45 AM
Innocent until proven guilty...of the current charges, of course. would you really want it to be any other way? as for her "involvement in prostitution at the age of 16, let's remember that she was not considered mature enough to form an intelligent opinion as to who to vote for. so, if she wasn't mature enough for that, she was still too juvenile to form an intelligent decision to engage in that activity. she was a victim of a lifestyle much older, more mature, and more established than herself. a wise man once said "you can't blame a man (or woman) for having been a criminal. the shame is in remaining a criminal."


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »