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

[ToadBrother]

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.

I wonder how willing you would be to accept that if it was you sitting behind bars for a crime you didn't commit, put there by dirty cops, a Crown Prosecutor just looking to convict anybody and a jury that never heard the reality of how weak the case was.

[guyser]

. 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.

That to me is selective blueblood.

A cop provides the evidence to the crown, a cop can (and has/done) selectively ignore,discard or hide evidence that may or may not match his biases on that particular case. (case in point- evidence for GP Morin were ciggies, cept Morin never smoked)

The court does the sorting, but if what is needed to sort is not there, then what?

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.

That is true, but it does not address the simple fact that neither the judge nor the jury would have come to that same conclusion had they been forwarded all the info the cop dismissed. We know cops who have double notes , yet admit to only one set. Why? Because it works for them.

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.

That is, in my belief , not to be true at all. Evidence for keeping one in jail is provided by the cops, disputing that evidence will not take place for eons.

The system works on a moderate level of trust. It has to . The crown has to trust what he gets from the cops, the judge has to trust what he gets from the crown, the jury has to trust what the judge allows in order to come to a fair verdict.

Should anyone of the players pull shite from shinola, then nothing is fair.

[Progressive Tory]

That to me is selective blueblood.

A cop provides the evidence to the crown, a cop can (and has/done) selectively ignore,discard or hide evidence that may or may not match his biases on that particular case. (case in point- evidence for GP Morin were ciggies, cept Morin never smoked)

The court does the sorting, but if what is needed to sort is not there, then what?

That is true, but it does not address the simple fact that neither the judge nor the jury would have come to that same conclusion had they been forwarded all the info the cop dismissed. We know cops who have double notes , yet admit to only one set. Why? Because it works for them.

That is, in my belief , not to be true at all. Evidence for keeping one in jail is provided by the cops, disputing that evidence will not take place for eons.

The system works on a moderate level of trust. It has to . The crown has to trust what he gets from the cops, the judge has to trust what he gets from the crown, the jury has to trust what the judge allows in order to come to a fair verdict.

Should anyone of the players pull shite from shinola, then nothing is fair.

I'd love to see a sting on a 'Mr. Big' operation. We have a tape where he claims to be a mob boss and starts confessing to crimes. He has loads of cash caught on tape, bribing someone to break the law.

Only in Canada, because most civilized countries would find the practice abysmal, and in fact they do....and illegal...and unconstitutional. I was ashamed when I first learned of it.

[blueblood]

That to me is selective blueblood.

A cop provides the evidence to the crown, a cop can (and has/done) selectively ignore,discard or hide evidence that may or may not match his biases on that particular case. (case in point- evidence for GP Morin were ciggies, cept Morin never smoked)

The court does the sorting, but if what is needed to sort is not there, then what?

That is true, but it does not address the simple fact that neither the judge nor the jury would have come to that same conclusion had they been forwarded all the info the cop dismissed. We know cops who have double notes , yet admit to only one set. Why? Because it works for them.

That is, in my belief , not to be true at all. Evidence for keeping one in jail is provided by the cops, disputing that evidence will not take place for eons.

The system works on a moderate level of trust. It has to . The crown has to trust what he gets from the cops, the judge has to trust what he gets from the crown, the jury has to trust what the judge allows in order to come to a fair verdict.

Should anyone of the players pull shite from shinola, then nothing is fair.

If said cop was fiddling around with evidence, a good defence attorney should be able to spot that and the case gets thrown out of court. A crown's job is to provide evidence, the defence's job is to do it's best in ripping it apart.

If what is needed to sort is not there, the case gets thrown out of court and the defendant walks, i.e. OJ Simpson.

There was however enough evidence according to the judge and jury. Yours or mine opinion on whether there was or wasn't enough evidence doesn't matter two whits. The beauty of this country, shotty evidence collecting leads to appeals. Even shottier evidence collecting means the crown attorney laughs at the police officers when they make a court package.

The system does work on trust, a lot of court packages won't make it to trial even. A lot of cases get thrown out or the defendant is acquitted. To be fair, there are also some shite defence attorneys pull that some would think isn't fair either. Law can be dirty pool at times, it pays to be well prepared.

What I'm surprised at is why crown attorney's would go to trial based on Mr. Big evidence alone. Mr. Big evidence from what I've seen is a way for establishing a good lead to go after hard evidence. I don't see any rights violated from Mr. Big other than it's really really dirty pool. Like I said, be mad at the crown attorney's, judges, and jury. All the cops did was their job.

[blueblood]

I wonder how willing you would be to accept that if it was you sitting behind bars for a crime you didn't commit, put there by dirty cops, a Crown Prosecutor just looking to convict anybody and a jury that never heard the reality of how weak the case was.

First of all I'd hire an expensive lawyer and request a polygraph exam. That should clear things up shouldn't it. Then there's appeals. Weak cases tend not to do good when appeals are launched.

[guyser]

First of all I'd hire an expensive lawyer and request a polygraph exam.

First part good, second part useless. Inadmissable in court.

Going back to you earlier reply, I dont think you got the gist of what I was saying. In this specific case, I cannot comment.

In general though, manipulation of evidence, hiding of same, throwing away of same can lead to

a bogus conviction.

A coerced confession is more than dirty pool. If a person is sufficiently scared he will agree to anything just to be left alone. Studies show this to be true.

What we need to strive for are convictions based on all the evidence. A defence lawyer cannot shred a crowns case if the crown (or his agents) has not ponied up .

Justice is denied otherwise.

Edited January 13, 2009 by guyser

[ToadBrother]

First part good, second part useless. Inadmissable in court.

Going back to you earlier reply, I dont think you got the gist of what I was saying. In this specific case, I cannot comment.

In general though, manipulation of evidence, hiding of same, throwing away of same can lead to

a bogus conviction.

A coerced confession is more than dirty pool. If a person is sufficiently scared he will agree to anything just to be left alone. Studies show this to be true.

What we need to strive for are convictions based on all the evidence. A defence lawyer cannot shred a crowns case if the crown (or his agents) has not ponied up .

Justice is denied otherwise.

I think the post is confusing "procedurally correct" with "justice". Yes, a court can convict an innocent man, and in fact have done things procedurally correct, but as we say in the computing world, GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. If the evidence being submitted by the Crown is crap (whether because the evidence is faulty or forged or because of forced or coercive confessions) then it doesn't matter how good a job the judge and jury does, an innocent man can be framed.

And as to getting expensive lawyers, how would someone in David Milgaard's position, for instance, have done that?

[blueblood]

First part good, second part useless. Inadmissable in court.

Going back to you earlier reply, I dont think you got the gist of what I was saying. In this specific case, I cannot comment.

In general though, manipulation of evidence, hiding of same, throwing away of same can lead to

a bogus conviction.

A coerced confession is more than dirty pool. If a person is sufficiently scared he will agree to anything just to be left alone. Studies show this to be true.

What we need to strive for are convictions based on all the evidence. A defence lawyer cannot shred a crowns case if the crown (or his agents) has not ponied up .

Justice is denied otherwise.

I have actually spoken to a polygraphist about that. He says they can't go to court only with the test results, but they can talk about the test as part of the case. And I have had a poly exam, (talk about having a shitty day)

The beauty of living in Canada, and why I'm against the death penalty, is that there is always room for appeal. A coerced confession shouldn't be the only thing the crown uses to go to trial, it should be treated as a lead to be followed up on. The judge and the jury and the lawyers dropped the ball there.

If the crown doesn't pony up, the defence has a valid legitimate reason for an appeal, or to have the case dismissed. In this case the defense lawyer was asleep at the switch. I'd be P.O'd at the crown attorney, he could have said come back with more evidence because I don't want appeals"

[ToadBrother]

I have actually spoken to a polygraphist about that. He says they can't go to court only with the test results, but they can talk about the test as part of the case. And I have had a poly exam, (talk about having a shitty day)

Polygraphs are voodoo science. They work only because the guy being submitted to the test may often believe they work.

The beauty of living in Canada, and why I'm against the death penalty, is that there is always room for appeal. A coerced confession shouldn't be the only thing the crown uses to go to trial, it should be treated as a lead to be followed up on. The judge and the jury and the lawyers dropped the ball there.

What should be and what is are often two different things.

If the crown doesn't pony up, the defence has a valid legitimate reason for an appeal, or to have the case dismissed. In this case the defense lawyer was asleep at the switch. I'd be P.O'd at the crown attorney, he could have said come back with more evidence because I don't want appeals"

You first have to find out that the Crown was withholding evidence. That takes a lot of time, and meanwhile a guy rots in prison.

[blueblood]

Polygraphs are voodoo science. They work only because the guy being submitted to the test may often believe they work.

What should be and what is are often two different things.

You first have to find out that the Crown was withholding evidence. That takes a lot of time, and meanwhile a guy rots in prison.

You take a polygraph test and try and beat it. Betcha you can't.

The guy rots in prison based on the evidence at his trial, still no excuse for the shitty job the defence does. The guy got a fair trial, and was tried and convicted based on evidence. OJ got off because of evidence kerfuffle, why can't your examples?

The guy said he committed crimes, society shouldn't have to pay for his stupidity and the judge agrees with me. Spare me the bleeding heart nonsense. Now people will think twice before blabbing nonsense at organized crime meetings for fear they might be the cops. That has in effect a benefit on society by hindering operations.

[ToadBrother]

You take a polygraph test and try and beat it. Betcha you can't.

Polygraphs are crap. No one actually believes they can tell truth from lie. They aren't admissible in court, they long ago were dismissed by psychologists and psychiatrists as crapola, and yet we still get people who insist "OOh, make him take the lie detector test".

The guy rots in prison based on the evidence at his trial, still no excuse for the shitty job the defence does. The guy got a fair trial, and was tried and convicted based on evidence. OJ got off because of evidence kerfuffle, why can't your examples?

No, Milgaard, for instance, did not get a fair trial. Evidence that would have clearly pointed at someone else was suppressed, and a force confession was used.

The guy said he committed crimes, society shouldn't have to pay for his stupidity and the judge agrees with me. Spare me the bleeding heart nonsense. Now people will think twice before blabbing nonsense at organized crime meetings for fear they might be the cops. That has in effect a benefit on society by hindering operations.

The guy was forced into a false confession, and since governments around the world are now being forced to pay big bucks to the victims of wrongful convictions, it seems that you are wrong on that count.

[blueblood]

Polygraphs are crap. No one actually believes they can tell truth from lie. They aren't admissible in court, they long ago were dismissed by psychologists and psychiatrists as crapola, and yet we still get people who insist "OOh, make him take the lie detector test".

No, Milgaard, for instance, did not get a fair trial. Evidence that would have clearly pointed at someone else was suppressed, and a force confession was used.

The guy was forced into a false confession, and since governments around the world are now being forced to pay big bucks to the victims of wrongful convictions, it seems that you are wrong on that count.

No, the polygraphist tells if your lying or not, the machine measures your biometrics. They can talk about the test in court, however it isn't evidence. But don't let the facts get in the way of anything.

Where's Milgaard's appeal, seems like the trial was pretty fair to me. His lawyer sucked, cry me a river.

There is no forcing a confession when they are undercover. The guy had an option to walk away. Your beef is with the court, take it up with them. The cops did their jobs, the court didn't.

[Oleg Bach]

There is a big guy in my hood - an ageing RCMP officer - retired I suppose....He confided in my that as he was busting herione dealers and addicts - He was addicted to herione due to a tragic event in his life...cops are humans...cops will breach the law - most importantly they will be encouraged to breach the trust when they see judges doing so.

[CANADIEN]

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

In the case of Morin, I remember reading that the victim;s mother, when she was first asked when she came back home to the day of her daughter's disappearance, gave a time that was earlier than the earliest time Morin could have arrived home. Since the victim was already missing when her mom arrived home, there was no way he could have abducted her.

Well, the police was so sure that he is the one who did it that they convinced themselves that the mother was wrong, and that she had arrived home a lot later that she thought, late enough that indeed it would have been possible for Morin to do it. I am certainly saying they acted out of malice, or coerced the mother in changing her statemen. But they went at her with enough "are you sure" type questions that, as she later testified at the enquiry into Morin's conviction, she was starting to believe they were right.

[CANADIEN]

You take a polygraph test and try and beat it. Betcha you can't.

The guy rots in prison based on the evidence at his trial, still no excuse for the shitty job the defence does. The guy got a fair trial, and was tried and convicted based on evidence. OJ got off because of evidence kerfuffle, why can't your examples?

The guy said he committed crimes, society shouldn't have to pay for his stupidity and the judge agrees with me. Spare me the bleeding heart nonsense. Now people will think twice before blabbing nonsense at organized crime meetings for fear they might be the cops. That has in effect a benefit on society by hindering operations.

Polygraphs can indeed be beaten. Certainly not easy, but feasable, Soviet spy Aldrich Ames beat it TWICE. He later claimed that all he did was to follow the advice of his Soviet handlers: "Get rested, relax, be nice and cooperative to the interrogator, and stay calm". Others said it was because he was a psychopath.

Some experts believe that the reliability of polygraph just a little higher than chance.

Edited January 14, 2009 by CANADIEN

[blueblood]

Polygraphs can indeed be beaten. Certainly not easy, but feasable, Soviet spy Aldrich Ames beat it TWICE. He later claimed that all he did was to follow the advice of his Soviet handlers: "Get rested, relax, be nice and cooperative to the interrogator, and stay calm". Others said it was because he was a psychopath.

Some experts believe that the reliability of polygraph just a little higher than chance.

I'd say it was the psychopath part. A big part of that test is your ability to tell right from wrong. Somebody like Mr. Canada wouldn't have a hope in hell of beating it because he firmly believes in what he thinks is right and wrong.

However, half of that test is the guy doing it himself, he just reads the charts and makes the call.