|
Court
ordered publication bans | Rafay/Burns
| CSM article | RCMP
Big Boss scenarios: National Post | RCMP
exporting illegal tactics to Australia | Scenario sting victims:
Clayton Mentuck | Atif
Rafay and Sebastian Burns | Kyle
Unger | Wilfred Hathway
| Christine LePage
| Gordon Strowbridge
| Jean Paul Aubee |
Clayton George
Mentuck, Manitoba
From Judge MacInnes'
acquittal, Court of Queen's Bench Manitoba, September 28, 2000
In conclusion, and for any
one or all of the reasons expressed, I conclude that Mr. Benson
is an untruthful and unreliable witness, and his evidence likewise
is untruthful and unreliable. I do not accept that the accused
made the so-called confession to Benson as testified to by him.
[73]
The remaining alleged confessions occurred within or as a part
of the sting operation conducted by the R.C.M.P. and known as
Operation Decisive.
[74]
The R.C.M.P. hired Douglas Brau to act as an informant and aide
in involving the accused in the sting operation. The accused
was a prisoner at BCI in August 1998. Mr. Brau agreed with the
R.C.M.P., in exchange for a payment of $25,000.00 with a possible
further payment of $25,000.00 for relocation purposes, to approach
the accused and sell him on the possibility of his working with
Mr. Brau in a criminal organization following his release.
[75]
Mr. Brau visited the accused on approximately four occasions
in August and September, 1996, picked the accused up at BCI when
he was released on September 8, and took him to a residence in
Brandon which, unknown to the accused, had been rented to the
R.C.M.P. That house, which was described by those in the sting
operation as the front house, was wired for both audio and video
and for the recording of telephone calls made from the residence.
[76]
The scheme was that an R.C.M.P. officer, Constable Teufel, would
meet regularly with Brau and the accused as their boss in this
criminal organization, would instruct them as to the jobs which
they were to perform and pay them for their services. On September
8, 1998, the date of the accused's release, Teufel visited the
front house, was introduced to the accused by Brau, and loaned
the accused $100.00 to buy clothes, the accused having no clothes
other than those which he was wearing when released from jail.
On September 9 and each successive day thereafter through September
16, except for Sunday, September 13, Teufel met with the accused
and Brau, instructed them as to the jobs to be performed each
day and paid them upon completion of the job. To describe the
work as minimal in nature and the payment as easy money would
be an exaggeration in the extreme. For those seven days, performing
work that took approximately 20 hours, the accused was paid $1,800.00.
[77]
Throughout the period of the sting operation, which concluded
with the accused's arrest on September 19, Constable Teufel,
acting undercover, sought to impress the accused with the fact
that this was an opportunity for him to earn considerable money
over a prolonged period as part of this criminal organization,
that the criminal organization was a large and powerful organization
smarter than and with more resources than the police, and that
sums of money which the accused was asked to count or participate
in the count of, $20,000.00 and $50,000.00, were "chump
change" compared to what the accused was capable of making
if he continued to be a part of the criminal organization. Teufel
proceeded to impress upon the accused that in order to be and
remain a member of this criminal organization, honesty, integrity
and loyalty were paramount. Specifically, the accused was told
that this meant he had to come totally clean with Teufel (and
therefore with the organization), and had to tell them all of
the bad things he had done so that they would be fully aware
of the details of his past criminal conduct. It was made clear
to the accused throughout that the organization did not care
what it was he may have done. Indeed, he was told of the heinous
offences of some members of the organization and how they had
prospered in the organization. It was drummed into the accused
that he tell Teufel and the organization exactly what he had
done, both as proof to them of his honesty and so that they would
be able to protect him and not be faced with any surprises resulting
from police attendance or arrests of the accused for things which
the organization were not aware of.
[78]
Between September 8 and 17, activities were structured in such
a way as to ensure that Teufel had lengthy one-on-one time with
the accused so that he could repeat over and over this mantra
of honesty, loyalty and integrity, of the fact that the organization
had to know everything the accused had done and all of its details,
that the organization did not care what it was he had done, and
that if he were honest and loyal, he would have a lengthy and
lucrative future in the organization.
[79]
On the first occasion where Teufel and the accused spent time
one-on-one, namely, a car ride together from Winnipeg to Brandon,
they had some detailed discussion about the accused's family
and his background. The accused, however, made no mention of
the Amanda Cook murder.
[80]
On September 17, Teufel met with the accused at the front house.
The meeting involving just the two of them was videotaped. The
videotape and the transcript of their exchange were marked as
exhibits 29 and 30 respectively. At the outset, Teufel raised
with the accused the fact that in their earlier discussion where
the accused was telling him about all the bad things he had done,
the accused forgot to tell him something. The accused responded:
Mentuck:
About that uh murder eh?
Teufel:
Yeah.
Mentuck:
Yeah. They tried to charge me with that but ... they couldn't
do it cause they found out I didn't do it.
Teufel:
Heh?
Mentuck:
They found out I didn't do it. And that's why ... most of the
time I don't want to talk about it sometimes.
The interview then continued
for some considerable period of time. Throughout, Teufel told
the accused repeatedly that the organization had its sources,
that the organization knew that he had committed the murder,
that they didn't care what he had done but they simply had to
hear from him his admission that he had done it, consistent with
the need for him to display honesty, loyalty and integrity. Despite
Teufel's insistence that the organization knew that Mentuck had
committed the crime and his pressing the accused to admit to
it, the accused denied a dozen times or more that he had committed
the offence. By the end of the interview, the accused made clear
to Teufel that despite all that the organization was giving him
and how much he was enjoying his involvement in the organization,
he would be willing to give it all up and walk away. This despite
the fact that Mentuck had complained bitterly about the fact
that the police still thought he had committed the offence and
would not leave him alone, and Teufel's assurance to him that
the organization had somebody who was dying of cancer willing
to confess to the offence as long as the organization took care
of his family after his death, as a result of which the matter
would come to an end and the police would never bother the accused
again about the offence. When the accused consistently maintained
his denial and said that he was prepared to walk away, Teufel
responded that he would have to check with his boss first and
urged the accused to think further about that which they had
been discussing.
[81]
On September 18, the sting continued with a further one-on-one
interview between the accused and Teufel at the front house.
The interview began with Teufel saying:
Well I was busy all night.
On the phone to my boss. Guess what we were talking about?
Mentuck responded:
About me?
And Teufel said:
About you. I'm in shit now.
He's sending his right hand man out cause they say I'm fuckin'
up here. So my ass is on the fuckin' line here. You were lying
to me yesterday, weren't you? George, don't bullshit, okay? I
told you they have contacts. Now my fuckin' ass is on the line
here too. I was vouching for you. I could lose my fuckin' job.
I don't want to lose my job. Because it's too nice of a life.
I don't want to fuckin' give it up.
The thrust of that entire interview
was Teufel impressing upon Mentuck, firstly, that the organization
knew he had committed the offence and was lying to them and,
secondly, that in doing so not only would the accused be out
of the organization, but that Teufel, his sponsor, would likewise
lose his job. Early in the interview and after pressing the accused
and urging him to confess so that they could go and have a beer
and get on with business, the following exchange occurs:
Mentuck:
Let's go have that beer.
Teufel:
What are you tellin' me? What are you tellin? Tell me, George.
Huh?
Mentuck:
I guess I did then.
Teufel:
You killed her?
Mentuck:
[His response was unintelligible but he appears on the videotape
to have nodded his head affirmatively.]
Teufel:
Now, does that feel better, George? Mmm? Do you feel better?
[followed by a period of silence]
Teufel then asks him why he
killed her and Mentuck responds "I was drunk". He then
goes on to say that he can hardly remember what happened and
proceeds to give brief detail as to how he and the deceased left
the fairgrounds. Mentuck then says that the story he gave to
the cops was not true. Teufel asks him to tell the truth and
Mentuck responds:
Mentuck:
Yeah, that's what - that's what I just did.
Teufel:
Okay, she was bothering you?
Mentuck:
Yeah.
Teufel:
So you killed her?
Mentuck:
I guess I must of cause I can't remember that part.
Teufel:
Well, we got to try to remember here George.
[There was then a period of
silence]
Teufel:
We got to try to remember. How did you kill her?
Mentuck:
They said I used a rock.
Teufel:
Well they said that. But how did you do it?
Mentuck;
I don't know.
Teufel challenges him again
for details "so we can cover things up, George", and
Mentuck responds:
Well, from what I all learned,
like cause I don't fuckin' remember anything. I just remember
running down that road ... that track there.
Teufel then proceeds to press
him for more detail so that they can cover it up. Mentuck is
unable to give any detail other than detail which he makes clear
he has heard from others. At a later point in the interview,
Teufel says:
But you know you killed her?
Mentuck responds:
Well, that's they're ... what
everyone's saying.
Mentuck goes on to maintain
that he does not remember what happened that night. Teufel presses
further saying:
Well you know what happened.
And Mentuck responds:
The things ... the things what
I'm sayin' ... it's because I've heard 'em from the courts and
that's the only information I have.
Shortly thereafter, another
R.C.M.P. undercover officer, Cpl. Guilcher, enters the front
house. The whole purpose in his involvement here was to impress
upon the accused that he was Teufel's superior, that Teufel was
not doing his job because he was not able to get the necessary
information from the accused, and that if Teufel was unable to
get the information, he'd be out of the organization. As well,
in exchange, it was made clear that the big boss in the organization,
Larry, was coming into town the next day so that he could meet
the new prospect, the accused. After Guilcher left the interview
continued, with Teufel reiterating that if he could not get the
accused to confess and provide the details to that which the
organization knew he had done, that Teufel would be out of his
job. He stated again that he did not want to give up that life
and went on to say to the accused:
And I don't think you do either.
Cause where the fuck are you gonna end up? Back on the reserve
and back in jail. Do you want to do that? Huh? George do you
want to do that?
[82]
Again the accused offered to step out of the organization, return
the money he had received and the clothing that had been bought
and leave. In response Teufel made clear to the accused that
it wasn't that simple, that they were in this together and that
if the accused were to step out, Teufel would be out too. Teufel
then said:
You know ... they know you
killed her. You told me you killed her, but you're saying you
don't remember. You gotta remember something George.
Mentuck responded:
I said, I guess I killed her.
Teufel said:
You guess?
And Mentuck responded:
Yeah. Cause I don't fuckin'
remember anything from the fuckin' night there. I just remember
fuckin' leaving the grounds, being tripped, getting picked up
on the road, going home, playing Nintendo and passed out. ...
The accused maintained his
denial and Teufel continued to assert that if the accused would
not come clean, Teufel would lose his job in the organization.
[83]
Brau testified that that night, he and the accused and a girl
had left the front house around 10:00 p.m. and returned around
2:30 a.m., spending the intervening time at a bar or bars. He
testified that following their return, they had had a few drinks,
and the accused asked him to tell the girl to go upstairs. Shortly
thereafter the accused went over to the stairs, ostensibly for
the purpose of ensuring that the girl had gone upstairs, and
then called Brau over. He first denied killing the deceased and
then admitted it. One immediately wonders why, if the accused's
purpose was to ensure that the girl was out of ear shot, he would
then have confessed to Brau at the foot of the stairs, the point
nearest the girl, rather than walk back to Brau at the opposite
side of the room and confess there. Doubtless though, stranger
things have happened.
[84]
The Crown asserts that this is another confession (one of five)
by the accused. As with the witness Benson, I find the witness
Brau to be incredible and unreliable and, in particular, as regards
this alleged admission.
[85]
It is true that Brau made notes of many of the occurrences in
which he was involved in the sting operation. To the extent his
notes and/or evidence are independently corroborated, such as
by the evidence of Teufel, I am prepared to accept it as credible.
However, where not so confirmed, I reject them as being untruthful
or unreliable.
[86]
Mr. Brau is an individual with a lengthy criminal record. He
admitted to being a drug trafficker over many years and, in reality,
has derived his livelihood from that. In addition, he is an alcoholic
who, by his own admission, had been known to consume up to 66
ounces of alcohol in a day and this, not on one isolated or a
few occasions only. As well, he has been a longtime drug user.
He testified, however, that at the time of this sting operation
he was not drinking heavily and particularly during the course
of the day while involved in sting activities, they were under
instructions not to drink. He admitted, however, that in the
evening they could drink as much as they wanted. On the night
in question, it is unclear as to exactly how much he had had
to drink. I am satisfied, however, that it was considerable.
[87]
While he testified that they were away from the front house from
10:00 a.m. until 2:30 a.m. and was adamant in that, he was then
cross-examined with reference to the transcripts of telephone
calls which he had made from the front house the evening of September
18 and the early morning of September 19, and it was obvious
that there were a number of calls made by him from the front
house during the time when on his testimony they were not home.
He could not recall any of them. Moreover, he testified that
on the Friday night or Saturday morning (September 18/19) he
found a note written by Mr. Mentuck which he turned over to the
R.C.M.P. on the evening of September 19. That note was filed
as exhibit 38 and reads:
Sept. 18/98
What I'm about to say to this
person is untrue. The information I gave is from what I learned
from these two officers (Frank Harvey, Gary Bardal). As I write
this I'm in confusion, what I say was said in confusion. I still
think I am innocent. I did not kill Amanda Cook. George Mentuck.
I note that Frank Harvey and
Gary Bardal were two of the investigating officers who testified
at the preliminary inquiry and on the voir dire at the
commencement of the first trial.
[88]
Brau admitted that he read this note before he turned it over
to the R.C.M.P. Brau knew the purpose of the sting operation.
It is inconceivable to me that having read the note and knowing
the purpose of the sting operation, he would simply turn the
note over to the R.C.M.P. and not tell them of the confession
made to him by the accused, that he had killed the girl. He admits
having had the opportunity to do that, and this was confirmed
by R.C.M.P. officers who testified. Brau did not tell the R.C.M.P.
of this confession until September 20, after Mr. Mentuck's arrest
and after he had been told that the sting operation was over.
Was this statement made by him to the R.C.M.P. because he realized
that with the sting operation over, his involvement was at an
end as well, whereas his having received such a confession would
necessitate his testifying at a subsequent trial and continue
to entitle him to earn some part of the second $25,000.00?
[89]
Regardless, I conclude that his character and condition are such
as to make his evidence, unless independently corroborated, unreliable.
And as regards the specific evidence, namely the confession,
I find it incredible that knowing as he did the purpose of the
sting operation and therefore the importance of such a confession,
and having had a clear and easy opportunity to make disclosure
of it to the R.C.M.P., he did not do so. I do not believe the
alleged confession occurred.
[90]
On September 19, the accused was taken by Mr. Teufel to a hotel
in Winnipeg to meet the big boss. That meeting was orchestrated
in such a way as to impress upon the accused the wealth and power
of this organization. That interview was also videotaped and
a written transcript provided (exhibits 36 and 37). In the interview,
the big boss confirmed to the accused that they had this individual
dying of cancer and aids who was prepared to admit guilt and
that they had concocted a scam whereby, following his so doing,
the accused would then be provided by the organization with a
lawyer and the necessary financing to sue the government for
having been wrongfully charged and jailed with respect to the
murder. The accused was told by the big boss that his lawyer
estimated the claim to be worth a million dollars and he guaranteed
the accused a minimum of $85,000.00 or 10%, whichever was the
greater, from the proceeds of the lawsuit, as well as a job in
the organization. He impressed upon the accused that in order
for this admission and scam to be successful, the individual
who would take the rap would have to know all of the details
of the murder because, undoubtedly, he would be interviewed extensively
by the police before they would be prepared to accept his admission
of guilt to the offence.
[91]
The accused then proceeded to provide details of the murder of
Amanda Cook. The big boss drew the details from the accused and
they were purportedly written down by Teufel, although the entire
interview was being videotaped. Following completion of the interview,
the accused was returned to the front house in Brandon where
he was then arrested and subsequently charged with the murder
of Amanda Cook.
[92]
There is no question that the accused confessed to the offence.
The question however is, is his confession reliable? Is it evidence
that the accused did in fact commit the offence in question,
or is it the case that the accused has confessed to something
which he did not do because of the circumstances which he was
in and the inducements which he received? I conclude on all of
the evidence that it is the latter.
[93]
I have reviewed the interview of September 19 in detail. I am
not aware of the evidence in detail given at the preliminary
inquiry, nor of the evidence given by the accused to the police
which was ruled inadmissible on the voir dire which preceded
the initial trial. As well, I am not aware of that which the
investigating officers may have told the accused in their dealings
with him. I am aware, however, of the witnesses who testified
at the preliminary inquiry and of many of the exhibits that were
introduced on it. I am aware as well that pursuant to Stinchcombe,
the Crown is under an obligation to make full disclosure to defence
counsel and would undoubtedly have done so in connection with
the preliminary inquiry and the intended first trial, both of
which occurred prior to the sting operation in September 1998.
[94]
As is evident from the interviews, much of that which the accused
related to both Teufel and the big boss on September 17, 18 and
19 was, as he described them, the result of things he'd been
told or had seen in connection with the court proceedings. Having
reviewed and analyzed the interview of September 19, there appears
to me nothing disclosed by the accused in his confession relative
to the activity which occurred at the crime scene and/or in the
commission of the offence itself, which was knowledge peculiar
to the accused and not simply information that had come out as
part of the police investigation and/or by way of disclosure
and/or evidence at the preliminary inquiry or voir dire
preceding the first trial.
[95]
It is true that the accused gave some details of him and the
deceased proceeding together to or toward the murder scene. But
they were in my view really innocuous comments, easily made up.
In fact, on the evidence, part of it at least was untrue.
[96]
The accused said he had fallen and banged his head, causing him
to black out so that the next thing he recalled was being picked
up on the road as he headed home. He also said he was very drunk
and, on arriving home, passed out. Evidence of many witnesses
is to the contrary. There is no evidence that he complained to
anyone of striking his head, being concussed or blacking out.
There is much evidence, though, that the accused appeared normal,
acted normal, was not drunk, and on arriving home did laundry,
ate a meal, played Nintendo and went to bed.
[97]
Is the accused's blackout and extreme intoxication, as he asserts,
his way of being able to go along with the demands of the organization,
while at the same time allowing himself some escape from even
falsely admitting to the murder?
[98]
And what of the note - exhibit 38? If one puts too fine a point
on it, one wonders why some of it is in the past tense, whereas
some of it appears to refer to a future event? But one must remember
the circumstances surrounding the writing of the note, that is,
that it was written towards the end of the sting operation following
the intensive interrogations by Teufel on September 17 and 18,
and in the face of the prospect of meeting the big boss on September
19. As well, it is the product of an unsophisticated young man
with probably no more than a grade 7 education and a life of
deprivation, in at least the material sense. Does the note refer
to that which he told Teufel on September 18, or that which he
was expecting to tell the big boss on September 19? Or, is it
simply the accused's way of saying that he did not kill Amanda
Cook, that he still believes he is innocent, but that with all
that he has heard, he is confused? I don't know the answer. But
the note is not conclusive of any fact in any event.
[99]
Overall, when one analyzes the position that the accused found
himself in by reason of the sting operation, I conclude that
the inducement for him to admit the offence was positively overwhelming.
There was nothing but upside for him to admit and nothing but
downside for him to deny the offence. If he were to admit to
the killing, he would thereby demonstrate his honesty, loyalty
and integrity to the organization, having been told repeatedly
that the organization knew he had done it, did not care that
he had done it, and had someone who would admit to the offence.
All he had to do was admit to that which they knew in any event
he had done. Indeed, Teufel made it clear that in the circumstances
being truthful equalled admitting the murder; denying it meant
he was lying because of course the organization knew he had done
it. Were he to admit it, because someone else was then going
to take the rap, his name would effectively be cleared and he
would never be bothered about the matter by the police again,
something that was a source of ongoing annoyance for him. In
addition, he would be able to successfully sue the government
as part of the scam for which he was guaranteed a minimum of
$85,000.00. As well, he would be guaranteed an ongoing position
in the criminal organization, an occupation which over a period
of seven days had paid him $1,800.00 for doing little in the
way of work and which perhaps, as one police witness admitted,
may have been more money than he'd seen in his life. As compared
with that, to maintain his denial would mean that the stigma
of this offence would continue to hang over his head, that the
police would continue to bother him about it in the future, that
he would not receive the $85,000.00 and indeed would be out of
the criminal organization and the job and income which that provided.
As well, the person with whom he was working and who had appeared
to take him under his wing, Teufel, would likewise be out of
a job. What would that leave him for the future? Probably that
which Teufel himself described, namely, back on the Reserve and
back in jail.
[100]
I fully recognize that when the police are attempting to solve
crimes and, in particular, to obtain admissions from people they
honestly believe to be suspect, that they may be required to
resort to tactics which some may describe as unfair or dirty.
It is unnecessary for me to consider or make comment about that
here. But, in my view, the police must be aware that as the level
of inducement increases, the risk of receiving a confession to
an offence which one did not commit increases, and the reliability
of the confession diminishes correspondingly. In this case, in
my view, the level of inducement was overpowering. As I have
already said, it provided nothing but upside for the accused
to confess and a downside of frustration and despair in maintaining
his denial. I conclude that the confession, if not false, is
certainly too unreliable for acceptance as an admission of guilt.
[101]
When I consider the totality of the evidence, namely, the circumstantial
evidence including the physical and scientific evidence, the
evidence pertaining to opportunity, and the sting operation in
its entirety, including the accused's adamant denials, his insistence
upon his being drunk and concussed in an attempt at explaining
away that to which he was confessing (and for which there is
no evidence, indeed there is evidence to the contrary), and the
note which he wrote on September 18 prior to his attendance in
Winnipeg on the 19th, I am not satisfied that the Crown has proved
the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, I
conclude that it would be unsafe to convict the accused based
upon the evidence and, as stated at the outset of these reasons,
I therefore find the accused not guilty of the murder of Amanda
Cook as charged.
J.
|
 Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell
Truth suppress'd, whether
by courts or crooks, will find an avenue to be told. Sheila Steele, injusticebusters.com
If you hold the mouth
of Truth, It will burst out its rib-cage. Somali proverb
Publisher : Sheila
Steele
Got something
to say about this or any other stories on this site? Go to injusticebustersblog Participate!
- injusticebusters
court advice :
- How to walk yourself through the justice system
-
- Why you should dump your preliminary hearing (written July 1998 and still valid)
-
-
Another target
of Dueck's malice: : Wilf Hathway
Our activism
contributed greatly to the good vibes which happened around the
civil trial.
Index
to the stories on this website
This is not
regularly updated so if you are looking for a particular story
and you have a name or keyword, please use the site search engine(at
the bottom of the page) which IS regularly updated
Index to Saskatoon Police stories
This is a pretty good scrapbook
for the 1998-2002 period.
Inquiry into the malicious prosecution of David
Milgaard untanling 36 years of Saskatchewan police and Crown
misconduct: : Opening day 1 | 2
| 3 | 4
| 5 | 6
| 7 |
- Stephen Williams:
Canadian writer subject to Stasi-like treatment by Canadian police
- Terry
Arnold: : Snitch a
suicide?
- RCMP
scenario stings: Brian
Hutchinson starts digging
- Gary
wells: Faulty eye-witness
testimony
- Tulia,
Texas
- Gilmer,
Texas
- Willie
Upshaw
- Wrongfully convicted in Canada
- Foster Parent false accusations
- Martensville
- Don
Smith obscenity trial: an obscene conviction
- James
Lockyer
- Hurricane
Carter
- Johnny Cochran speaks up for
Bill Sampson
- Vopnis
- Abdulai
Mohamed
- Nfld Defamation story:
- Wanda
Young
- Racism
in the Federal Civil Service
The Terrible Story behind the Atif Rafay and
Sebastian Burns convictions
Trial
set for June 15
We
know part of this disclosure is a forged statement and perjured
affidavit from a Winnipeg cop
-
-
-
-
The
Crown is still fighting Fred Poirier -- and they are losing.
Secret Commissions Case from Northern B.C.
-
-
- 2005: In
the United States the proven wrongful convictions just keep coming
at us!
-
- Brandon Morin:
- Convicted in Oregon
- of rapes which did not happen
- This website has good information
about Measure 11 -- Oregon's Mandatory Sentencing requirements
which have been in place since 1994. In this case we see how
the combination of a flawed grand jury system and prosecutors
who seek not justice but convictions is a recipe for wrongful
convictions.
-
Canadians who
have been wrongfully convicted because of improper investigations
combined with zealous Crown
A
round-up of wrongful convictions in Canada
- Robert
Baltovich
- Michael Burns
- Sebastian Burns
- Rodney
Cain
- Wilbert
Coffin
(hanged, 1953)
- Jason
Dix
- Jim
Driskell
- Jody
Druken
- Randy
Druken
- Hugues
Duguay
- Michel Dumont
- Peter
Frumusa
- Walter
Gillespie and Robert Mailman
- Clayton Johnson
- Yvonne Johnson
- Herman
Kaglik
- Darren
Koehn
- Kulaveeringsam
"Kulam" Karthiresu
- Stephen Leadbeater
- Donald Marshall
- Chris McCullough
- Michael
McTaggart
- Felix
Michaud
- David Milgaard
- Guy
Paul Morin
- Shannon
Murrin
- Jamie
Nelson
- Greg
Parsons
- Benoit Proulx
- Atif Rafay
- Louise
Reynolds
- Thomas
Sophonow
- Gary
Staples
- Billy
Taillefer
- Steven
Truscott
- Joe
Warren
- Leon
Walchuk
-
- AIDWYC
- Innocence Project (Canada)
- Innocence Project (U.S.)
- Northwest Law Center on Wrongful Convictions
-
- Kirstin Lobato
- Jeffrey
Scott Hornoff
- Willie
Upshaw
- Hurricane
Carter
- Guildford
4
- Birmingham
6
- Amirault
- Houston
- U.S. wrongful convictions:
Exonerateed
- Kirk
Bloodsworth
- Laurence
Adams
- Ludrate
Burton
- Stephen
Cowans
- Wilton
Dedge
- Albert
Johnson
- Kenneth
Marsh
- Dwayne
McKinney
- James
Bernard Parker
- Peter
Reilly
- Peter
Rose
- Sylvester
Smith
- Clifford
St. Joseph
- John
Stoll
- Marty
Tankleff
- Wilton
Dedge
- Ray
Krone
-
- Still working on it:
- Dennis Deschaine
- Dennis
Perry
- Tim
Sandfort
-
-
|
Revitalizing the
archives
From 1998 until
2002, injusticebusters was in the throes of identity crisis.
What was it? What were we doing? We grappled with editorial policy
at the same time we were learning the nuts and bolts of building
and posting a website. Once we had a secure, paid site I had
full editorial control, although I talked regularly to Richard
Klassen who was forced to move his family several times and did
not always have access to the internet. Rick's pages: one | two
We posted our
earliest and later actions.
Early versions
of the site can be found on the Wayback Machine.
I began following
other threads to stories of police and prosecutorial misconduct
and the site's character took on another facet: a newsclipping
scrapbook where stories could live longer than they would in
print form. I also began picking up other stories of wrongfully
convicted people. It was an explosion. By 2003 there were over
700 pages. I also had contact with several other people (Don Smith, Leon Walchuk, Monique Turenne, the Vopnis) and kept these stories
going.
It was the
story of the Ross children's treatment at the hands of the Saskatchewan
government which grabbed the attention of The
Fifth Estate.
The civil claim (The $10M Lawsuit as we called it) was only mentioned
briefly at the end of their show which aired in November, 2000.
When Richard
Klassen began to make progress in bringing his civil claim to
court, the government and police defendants alleged he was breaking
the rules of court by publishing discovery material on the internet.
- MacNeil clinic (the document which started it all)
- The Thompson Papers
- Carol
Bunko-Ruys reports
This claim
was absolutely false. However, rather than risk being thrown
out of his civil claim, Klassen undertook before Judge Mona Dovall
to sever all ties with the website.
The court fights:
- Les
Perreaux report
- QB271
These pages have links which
lead to other pages from that era. Now that some of the dust has settled,
I have been going back through the material we had posted in
the early days. In the spirit of keeping the scrapbook alive,
I have been reformatting and placing links. The original material
remains intact. I hope the information, which chronicles our
struggle is useful to you.
The identity
crisis is over. We know who we are --Sheila Steele, March
28, 2005
|
-
Blogging
Blogging has been in the news.
It is the new, trendy thing with 40,000 new blogs being created
each day. I established a blog for this website last September
and it is now "taking off." These are a few of the
pages with ongoing discussions.
- Tasering Mary Lutz
- Saskatchewan Centenary
- Quint Blog discussion
- Rotten apples in the Saskatoon Police
- Blogging for choice
- Michael Cardamone witch hunt
- Implement recommendations of public
inquiries
- Stealing from the poor
- Vancouver's killer cops
- Tisdale rapists appeal
- Winnipeg police misdeeds
- Milgaard Inquiry
- Chief Sabo: can he be trusted?
- The Old Boys' Club Must Go!
- Vancouver activists
- John Hudak: Falsely accused mountie
- City of intolerance
- Constable Larry Lockwood: Exciteable!
- Eric Cline
This is a great way for like-minded
people to communicate and share our views. It is easier than
making a website and marginally more difficult than a forum.
People who want to contribute
simply have to punch the "comment" link and they will
be taken to a page with a box which allows them to write their
comment, preview and post it. It takes a while for the comment
to show up and some people get impatient and repost. That's fine,
I trash the duplicate posts and no harm done.
Please, please give it a try.
The internet is distinguished from other media in that it is
really and truly interactive. Blogging makes it possible to express
your viewpoint even if you don't have a computer. You can go
to the library or a friend's place or an internet cafe. Once
you've mastered the basics (and believe me, if I can do it, you
can do it) you will be participating in one of the most democratic
-- and potentially powerful -- media the world as we know it
has ever seen.
Come on. Don't be shy. Join
the Weblog World! -- Sheila Steele, March 20, 2005
Toronto Police paid out $30M in secretly resolved
claims over last five years
|
