"Mr. Big". Does the RCMP Sting Operation Go Too Far?

[Progressive Tory]

This might be old news but I recently watched a documentary about the RCMP's undercover operation dubbed "Mr. Big". I'd never heard of it before and was quite shocked, especially since Great Britian and the US deem such operations unconstitutional, and any confessions obtained in such a manner are not allowed into evidence.

"RCMP's 'Mr. Big' stings challenged

Documentary by murderer's sister looks at confessions

"Burns' documentary focuses on an often-used undercover police scenario in which police pretend to be members of an organized crime gang, gradually gaining the trust of their suspect and involving him in their supposedly illegal activities until the suspect is told he has to come clean about his past so the gang can "take care of" any problems. That's where the confession to the gang leader "Mr. Big" comes in."

http://www.canada.com/northshorenews/news/...414&k=88657

A combination of bribery and fear are used to obtain a confession in a case with little or no physical evidence. Some people have been convicted and sent to prison based on these often coerced confessions, then later DNA clears them completely.

I know undercover operations work, when officers infiltrate a criminal network; but this is different. With little or no physical evidence, and often on a hunch; an elaborate ruse is set up to 'trick' their victim into a confession. I'm not loving it.

From the National Post: (scroll down the linked page to find the article)

Meet Mr. Big

A new film looks at an RCMP method that British and American police aren't allowed to use

By Brian Hutchinson, The National Post

"The RCMP would rather you not pay too much attention to the Mr. Big technique. Developed by Mounties in British Columbia more than a decade ago, the aggressive undercover policing method is used dozens of times each year in murder investigations, from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland. It relies on secrecy. It benefits from indifference. The Americans and British won't let their police use it.

"Word here is spreading and so are concerns, as more Mr. Big cases move forward and sting details are heard in Canadian courts. Meanwhile, more criminologists, defence lawyers and experts in the field of false confessions warn that the RCMP is using coercion and intimidation to elicit admissions of guilt from murder suspects. The method, they say, is dangerous."

http://www.lastlinkontheleft.com/e2005albe...cmpdeathsh.html

Any thoughts?

[blueblood]

Oh great another cop trasher. Apparently the sacrifices and hard work they do to keep you safe isn't good enough for you.

Are the RCMP torturing these people, No. If these people are stupid enough to blab about their activities then they deserve what they get coming to them. Those people made a choice to join a fake gang, and they made a choice to tell their life story. They had the option to walk out and not get charged. Boo hoo cry me a river a skid goes to jail where he belongs.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[bill_barilko]

....A combination of bribery and fear are used to obtain a confession in a case with little or no physical evidence. Some people have been convicted and sent to prison based on these often coerced confessions, then later DNA clears them completely.

Link?

Proof to DNA getting people off because they were just braggarts taking credit for murders they didn't commit?

Any thoughts?

You're naive almost beyond belief and what the USA and Britain do/don't do count for shit here.

...If these people are stupid enough to blab about their activities then they deserve what they get coming to them. Those people made a choice to join a fake gang, and they made a choice to tell their life story. They had the option to walk out and not get charged. Boo hoo cry me a river a skid goes to jail where he belongs.

Lock them up in a deep dark cold hole and throw away the key-they are vermin and deserve to be treated as such

[Progressive Tory]

Oh great another cop trasher. Apparently the sacrifices and hard work they do to keep you safe isn't good enough for you.

Are the RCMP torturing these people, No. If these people are stupid enough to blab about their activities then they deserve what they get coming to them. Those people made a choice to join a fake gang, and they made a choice to tell their life story. They had the option to walk out and not get charged. Boo hoo cry me a river a skid goes to jail where he belongs.

Oh for heaven sakes. I'm not a 'cop trasher' but question this practice. They look for the 'suspects' vulnerabilities and zero in on them with an elaborate scheme to coerce a confession. Nobody said they were completely innocent individuals, but did they commit the murders they're being targetted for?

In the case of the filmmakers brother, the two boys were trying to get funding for a movie they were trying to make. They were led to 'Mr. Big' and to prove that they wouldn't rat out this mob boss, had to show false bravado. The confession didn't even match the crime scene, but it didn't matter. However, other crucial evidence was kept out of the trial, like the 1 1/2 year bug that the RCMP had planted in the boys' car, and despite the fact they didn't know they were being taped, never once mentioned or alluded to themselves as the murderers. The one boy only spoke of missing his family who were the victims.

In fact, there was hair and blood, not belonging to the victims found at the scene, that did not match either boy, but since the DNA was not found in their database either, the RCMP got tunnel vision and ignored the physical evidence, knowing that only a confession, real or fake, would 'solve' this case.

Another individual, who actually sued the RCMP and won, was intimidated when the RCMP operative pretended to commit a murder right before his eyes. This operative posing as a hitman, then told his target to prove he could be trusted by disclosing his crimes. You'd make up anything at that point. He and his wife had been having financial difficulties, so he was offered large amounts of cash to 'run errands.

This is not good undercover work. It is also very costly, because to prove that Mr. Big is a mob boss, they drive only expensive cars, stay at the best hotels and eat at the finest restaurants. They also throw around huge amounts of cash to lure their prey.

The suspects have no lawyer present, nor have the police identified themselves as police officers. Undercover cops MUST actually catch the criminal in the act of committing a crime. Mr. Big does not.

[Molly]

You have to admit that eliciting a confession that you have no good reason to believe is true- is a doubtful practice.

It's crappy evidence.

[Progressive Tory]

You have to admit that eliciting a confession that you have no good reason to believe is true- is a doubtful practice.

It's crappy evidence.

It's not only crappy evidence but should be stopped. A gross violation of rights.

[blueblood]

Oh for heaven sakes. I'm not a 'cop trasher' but question this practice. They look for the 'suspects' vulnerabilities and zero in on them with an elaborate scheme to coerce a confession. Nobody said they were completely innocent individuals, but did they commit the murders they're being targetted for?

In the case of the filmmakers brother, the two boys were trying to get funding for a movie they were trying to make. They were led to 'Mr. Big' and to prove that they wouldn't rat out this mob boss, had to show false bravado. The confession didn't even match the crime scene, but it didn't matter. However, other crucial evidence was kept out of the trial, like the 1 1/2 year bug that the RCMP had planted in the boys' car, and despite the fact they didn't know they were being taped, never once mentioned or alluded to themselves as the murderers. The one boy only spoke of missing his family who were the victims.

In fact, there was hair and blood, not belonging to the victims found at the scene, that did not match either boy, but since the DNA was not found in their database either, the RCMP got tunnel vision and ignored the physical evidence, knowing that only a confession, real or fake, would 'solve' this case.

Another individual, who actually sued the RCMP and won, was intimidated when the RCMP operative pretended to commit a murder right before his eyes. This operative posing as a hitman, then told his target to prove he could be trusted by disclosing his crimes. You'd make up anything at that point. He and his wife had been having financial difficulties, so he was offered large amounts of cash to 'run errands.

This is not good undercover work. It is also very costly, because to prove that Mr. Big is a mob boss, they drive only expensive cars, stay at the best hotels and eat at the finest restaurants. They also throw around huge amounts of cash to lure their prey.

The suspects have no lawyer present, nor have the police identified themselves as police officers. Undercover cops MUST actually catch the criminal in the act of committing a crime. Mr. Big does not.

So? Those criminals have options. They can keep their mouth shuts. I could care less about their sob stories. The RCMP has found a way to gather evidence without resorting to torture and we are safer because of it. If a guy is stupid enough to join a criminal organization and brag about his crimes, then off to the clink he goes. Boohoo, the RCMP is doing something effecient regarding organized crime.

When working undercover, police officers tend to keep their identities a secret. They aren't performing an arrest. Should a witness to a crime publically anounce to a criminal that he's going to go to the police and testify in court? A confession is good enough to get a trial, which is what the cops and crown are after. Mr. Big allows sufficient evidence to allow for a trial and then its up to the judge, if nothing happened, you walk. Police officers aren't judges, they merely collect trash off the street and tell the judge why they collect trash off the street. The judge determines whether the reason for collecting the trash is good enough to send the trash to jail or not.

[madmax]

Mr. Big allows sufficient evidence to allow for a trial and then its up to the judge, if nothing happened, you walk.

You have to admit. Tiffany Burns is hot.

[guyser]

Lock them up in a deep dark cold hole and throw away the key-they are vermin and deserve to be treated as such

And therein lies the problem with this type of investigation. The "vermin" as you so eloquently put it, or rather the real "vermin" who committed the crime is still walking the street , at least in some cases.

A cop wants a conviction, and when he gets it, even if he is with doubt, he is happy. It looks good on the record. The cop who busted Guy Paul Morin, who is now retired, still maintians he had the right guy even though all evidence, the crown and numerous partakers have exonerated GP Morin.

This type of investigation is problematic for many reasons. Should we disband it, I think so since it introduces to much doubt from the crowns side.

[Progressive Tory]

So? Those criminals have options. They can keep their mouth shuts. I could care less about their sob stories. The RCMP has found a way to gather evidence without resorting to torture and we are safer because of it. If a guy is stupid enough to join a criminal organization and brag about his crimes, then off to the clink he goes. Boohoo, the RCMP is doing something effecient regarding organized crime.

When working undercover, police officers tend to keep their identities a secret. They aren't performing an arrest. Should a witness to a crime publically anounce to a criminal that he's going to go to the police and testify in court? A confession is good enough to get a trial, which is what the cops and crown are after. Mr. Big allows sufficient evidence to allow for a trial and then its up to the judge, if nothing happened, you walk. Police officers aren't judges, they merely collect trash off the street and tell the judge why they collect trash off the street. The judge determines whether the reason for collecting the trash is good enough to send the trash to jail or not.

"The RCMP has found a way to gather evidence without resorting to torture and we are safer because of it."

That's just the point. They only do it when they have NO or NON-SUFFICIENT evidence for an arrest. In the case of Ms Burn's brother, the boys had been at the show, returned home and found the bodies, then called 911. They agreed to a complete search and a lasar that is said to find blood evidence no matter how much you try to clean it off, showed they had none. None of their DNA on the bodies, none of the victims' blood on them, despite the brutality. Kind of a lot to pull off for a couple of teenagers in such a short period of time.

Another fact was that in the so-called 'confession' the boy was coerced into saying he put his mother's scarf over her head after killing her to hide his shame, because that was what the RCMP believed. However, the blood spatter (or lack thereof), evidence actually proved that the scarf was on her head when she was killed.

The only thing the RCMP need are the words of the 'confession', and not what led to it. For all we know they could have asked them to read a scene. These confessions should not be allowed into evidence unless the RCMP reveal their identities beforehand and the suspect waives his rights to an attorney. They make us look like a police state where citizens have no rights.

[bill_barilko]

You have to admit. Tiffany Burns is hot.

Not my type-too bitchy looking and her family is full of chavs.

[ToadBrother]

The only thing the RCMP need are the words of the 'confession', and not what led to it. For all we know they could have asked them to read a scene. These confessions should not be allowed into evidence unless the RCMP reveal their identities beforehand and the suspect waives his rights to an attorney. They make us look like a police state where citizens have no rights.

This is why I consider shows like CSI and Law and Order to be largely pro-police propaganda. They make investigators (whether detectives, undercover cops, forensics teams and prosecutors) look like semi-deific figures that always get the right guy, never screw up the evidence, go for the easiest convictions, or at times, yes, manufacture cases out of thin air simply to say "We got the right guy!"

The police screw up, and when we give them even more powers, the risks of colossal screw ups increases.

[Smallc]

I take it you don't watch CSI or Law and Order.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Smallc

[blueblood]

"The RCMP has found a way to gather evidence without resorting to torture and we are safer because of it."

That's just the point. They only do it when they have NO or NON-SUFFICIENT evidence for an arrest. In the case of Ms Burn's brother, the boys had been at the show, returned home and found the bodies, then called 911. They agreed to a complete search and a lasar that is said to find blood evidence no matter how much you try to clean it off, showed they had none. None of their DNA on the bodies, none of the victims' blood on them, despite the brutality. Kind of a lot to pull off for a couple of teenagers in such a short period of time.

Another fact was that in the so-called 'confession' the boy was coerced into saying he put his mother's scarf over her head after killing her to hide his shame, because that was what the RCMP believed. However, the blood spatter (or lack thereof), evidence actually proved that the scarf was on her head when she was killed.

The only thing the RCMP need are the words of the 'confession', and not what led to it. For all we know they could have asked them to read a scene. These confessions should not be allowed into evidence unless the RCMP reveal their identities beforehand and the suspect waives his rights to an attorney. They make us look like a police state where citizens have no rights.

What the hell are you talking about? It's up to a judge whether these alledged criminals go to jail or not. Making an arrest and prosecuting in court are two different things. After an arrest you can be immediately released. Which is why the teenager's case an appeal has been made. Then there is the fact of sometimes confessions not being admissible in court. If the RCMP wanted to they could go to any bar after close and load all the patrons up for being drunk in public. They don't because the crown prosecutor assumes there is not enough evidence to warrant a conviction. Hence why a lot of the time people get released from the police station rather quickly. The sooner you realize police officers aren't judges, the sooner we can move this debate forward. In this case there was sufficient evidence gathered to warrant a trial, and there is sufficient evidence to warrant an appeal. It's like the soldier in Afghanistan, there is enough evidence to warrant a trial, but not enough to necessarily convict him.

[Army Guy]

That's just the point. They only do it when they have NO or NON-SUFFICIENT evidence for an arrest.

Could it be that our current justice system is flawed, and would you say it gives most of the advantages to criminal rather than the victim "in Most cases". would that not drive law enforcement agencies to look for any loophole they can find good or bad....

[Progressive Tory]

What the hell are you talking about? It's up to a judge whether these alledged criminals go to jail or not. Making an arrest and prosecuting in court are two different things. After an arrest you can be immediately released. Which is why the teenager's case an appeal has been made. Then there is the fact of sometimes confessions not being admissible in court. If the RCMP wanted to they could go to any bar after close and load all the patrons up for being drunk in public. They don't because the crown prosecutor assumes there is not enough evidence to warrant a conviction. Hence why a lot of the time people get released from the police station rather quickly. The sooner you realize police officers aren't judges, the sooner we can move this debate forward. In this case there was sufficient evidence gathered to warrant a trial, and there is sufficient evidence to warrant an appeal. It's like the soldier in Afghanistan, there is enough evidence to warrant a trial, but not enough to necessarily convict him.

A taped 'confession' from a defendant carries a lot of weight with the jury. "It's up to a judge whether these alledged criminals go to jail or not." That's not the case. My point is that the judge should be throwing out these confessions unless they can be backed up with strong physical evidence. These are jury trials and it's to the judge to determine what the jury is privy to. A coerced 'confession' is not enough, unless they later follow it up with a real confession, to people they know are police officers and with a lawyer present (unless they waive their rights to one). This isn't a TV show. It's real.

[blueblood]

A taped 'confession' from a defendant carries a lot of weight with the jury. "It's up to a judge whether these alledged criminals go to jail or not." That's not the case. My point is that the judge should be throwing out these confessions unless they can be backed up with strong physical evidence. These are jury trials and it's to the judge to determine what the jury is privy to. A coerced 'confession' is not enough, unless they later follow it up with a real confession, to people they know are police officers and with a lawyer present (unless they waive their rights to one). This isn't a TV show. It's real.

It carries a lot of weight to persuade a crown attorney to make a case as well. So if I witness a bank robbery, I have to tell the perpetrators of the bank robbery I'm going to the authorities? Sorry life is not fair, these people did not have to make a confession. There is just as much coercion that goes on inside an interrogation room as well. Your problem is with the jury, they buy what the police are selling. Tough titty for the suspects. Get on the defence lawyer for having a crappy defense. These kids were stupid enough to confess something, and are paying for it.

That would be like a person going around the bar bragging that he stole 50 cars and an off duty cop heard him, and ran the plates of his stolen car he was driving. By your logic, because the cop wasn't in uniform, that doesn't mean he didn't confess? He was bragging to everyone in the bar. Stupid is as stupid does, and these kids are finding out the hard way.

A fair trial took place and the kids had a chance to defend themselves, unfortunately for you, the justice system didn't go the way that you liked.

[ToadBrother]

A fair trial took place and the kids had a chance to defend themselves, unfortunately for you, the justice system didn't go the way that you liked.

Tell that to David Milgaard or Guy Paul Morin.

At the very least, the cost to police and Crown Prosecutors should be so onerous that they dot their Is and cross their Ts before sending someone to jail. I'd say at the very least make them personally liable for a part of moneys that has to be paid to a wrongfully convicted person. I more just thing would be for them to be put in jail for the same length of time.

[blueblood]

Tell that to David Milgaard or Guy Paul Morin.

At the very least, the cost to police and Crown Prosecutors should be so onerous that they dot their Is and cross their Ts before sending someone to jail. I'd say at the very least make them personally liable for a part of moneys that has to be paid to a wrongfully convicted person. I more just thing would be for them to be put in jail for the same length of time.

They are liable, its called losing the trial and having a potentially dangerous person free roaming the streets. It's not the cops that send people to jail, its the judges. The jury decides whether the person is guilty or not. The cops are just trash collectors, and the court does the sorting. There are a lot of cases that do get thrown out because of a lack of evidence, there are cases that are won based on sufficient evidence. In this case, the jury thought there was sufficient evidence to give the guilty verdict and the judge thought there was enough evidence to not throw the case out. It's a fair trial, as guyser puts it just because it didn't go the way you don't like it doesn't mean its not fair. There obviously was enough evidence or David Milgaard or Guy Paul Morin would have been released from the police station that very night and there would be no trial.

[Progressive Tory]

They are liable, its called losing the trial and having a potentially dangerous person free roaming the streets. It's not the cops that send people to jail, its the judges. The jury decides whether the person is guilty or not. The cops are just trash collectors, and the court does the sorting. There are a lot of cases that do get thrown out because of a lack of evidence, there are cases that are won based on sufficient evidence. In this case, the jury thought there was sufficient evidence to give the guilty verdict and the judge thought there was enough evidence to not throw the case out. It's a fair trial, as guyser puts it just because it didn't go the way you don't like it doesn't mean its not fair. There obviously was enough evidence or David Milgaard or Guy Paul Morin would have been released from the police station that very night and there would be no trial.

DNA evidence cleared them. Again, a taped, coerced confession cannot be enough. It is very compelling for a jury to hear the words of the man or woman, charged with a crime, saying they did it. If it can be backed up with a legitimate, legal confession or enough physical evidence to remove reasonable doubt, then allow the tape into evidence. Otherwise, it is simply NOT ENOUGH! If they had actual evidence they wouldn't need 'Mr. Big.'

[ToadBrother]

They are liable, its called losing the trial and having a potentially dangerous person free roaming the streets. It's not the cops that send people to jail, its the judges. The jury decides whether the person is guilty or not. The cops are just trash collectors, and the court does the sorting. There are a lot of cases that do get thrown out because of a lack of evidence, there are cases that are won based on sufficient evidence. In this case, the jury thought there was sufficient evidence to give the guilty verdict and the judge thought there was enough evidence to not throw the case out. It's a fair trial, as guyser puts it just because it didn't go the way you don't like it doesn't mean its not fair. There obviously was enough evidence or David Milgaard or Guy Paul Morin would have been released from the police station that very night and there would be no trial.

There was enough "manufactured" evidence. Juries don't always hear that side of the story. Milgaard, in particular, was basically shafted by the cops, and the irregularities were ignored by the Crown. They destroyed someone's life, and you're trying to tell me it was fair?

[ToadBrother]

DNA evidence cleared them. Again, a taped, coerced confession cannot be enough. It is very compelling for a jury to hear the words of the man or woman, charged with a crime, saying they did it. If it can be backed up with a legitimate, legal confession or enough physical evidence to remove reasonable doubt, then allow the tape into evidence. Otherwise, it is simply NOT ENOUGH! If they had actual evidence they wouldn't need 'Mr. Big.'

Which is why I think one of the things we could do is make it illegal for a cop to question a suspect without a lawyer. Don't give either the suspect or the cop the ability to jump past that. If a cop ignores it, then any confessions or testimony gained from it are invalid.

Taking a kid (which was what Milgaard was) and basically spending hours in a high stress situation beating him down until they got a confession is not gathering evidence, it's torture. You can get anyone to say anything given enough time.

Quite frankly I think we should probably just set it into law how much a falsely accused gets; say 10 million dollars a year of imprisonment, with, say 10% to be taken out of the police forces' and Crown prosecutors' budgets.

Edited January 13, 2009 by ToadBrother

[blueblood]

DNA evidence cleared them. Again, a taped, coerced confession cannot be enough. It is very compelling for a jury to hear the words of the man or woman, charged with a crime, saying they did it. If it can be backed up with a legitimate, legal confession or enough physical evidence to remove reasonable doubt, then allow the tape into evidence. Otherwise, it is simply NOT ENOUGH! If they had actual evidence they wouldn't need 'Mr. Big.'

Mr. Big allows them leads to get more evidence. However crown prosecutors thought they had enough evidence to go to trial and the judge and jury bought what they were selling. However there is this thing called appeals that defendants can use in circumstances such as this. Your outrage lies with the judge and jury with the case. The cops did their job by bringing the trash to court and providing evidence (no matter how shotty you think it is).

[Molly]

Ditto for Morin. He was railroaded for being odd. Evidence worthy of a conviction didn't ever exist.

[blueblood]

There was enough "manufactured" evidence. Juries don't always hear that side of the story. Milgaard, in particular, was basically shafted by the cops, and the irregularities were ignored by the Crown. They destroyed someone's life, and you're trying to tell me it was fair?

There was plenty of time to dispute the validility of evidence in the trial. The cops played dirty pool and won, deal with it. It was a fair trial and the defendant had his day in court to dispute the evidence, cry me a river that his lawyer sucks.