NOT VERY articulate, not very bright. It is a common assumption that shapes and ruins lives. It is the trial which is produced, when the truth is impeached. It is the story that takes shape when one faulty common assumption follows another.

People who defend their assumptions with determination, zeal and fraud, create Kafka-like tyranny. Under certain circumstances, a single false assumption may blossom to the point where it implicates an entire chain of "experts" .The chain is held fast through the fact that one link has blindly followed another, but it falls apart through the understanding that certain agreements or conclusions reached are unjustifiable. And what is the source of this blind loyalty or erroneous judgement? Call it professional courtesy, call it negligence, call it ignorance, or call it deception. Whatever it is called, as long as it persists, it is corruption.

The charge is not significant. It doesn't really matter because publicity ultimately determines the reaction. Imagine a deliberate, pre-meditated murder, ruled suicide. In the absence of a meticulous investigation, the murder is not only never solved, it is never even reported. It is not the crime. It is the publicity that surrounds it. The question is certainly common enough.

How do you wish to plead?"

Not guilty ."

Now that you have been convicted, is there anything you would like to say. "

This has been a travesty of justice. "

" A travesty of justice? "

The response is categorically dismissed. Why would any person frame another? It doesn't make sense. It is an absurd, indeed a shocking possibility that is seldom, if ever, seriously entertained -yet if we examine the possibility very closely, it is a curious omission. Clearly, the motivation to frame another person is not as unfathomable or as uncommon, as is generally believed.

One of the most frustrating occupational duties imaginable is to bear the responsibility to solve a highly publicized murder mystery. A murder which sparks highly emotional reactions poses a particular problem to people who naturally seek to overcome troublesome frustrations. But what if they cannot? What if the necessary clues do not emerge? What do they do then? How do they relieve their frustrations? The answer is simple. They either accept failure, they engage what appears to be a perpetual search for more clues, or they lie, cheat or do anything it takes, to overcome their frustrations.

The authorities are certainly aware of the relationship between frustrations and personal development. Indeed, in an effort to prove his guilt, they reportedly asked convicted murderer Guy Paul Morin about how he deals with his frustrations. Perhaps, it is time to ask the authorities the very same question, particularly since Guy Paul Morin did not appear to be at all frustrated, prior to being charged with murder.  


IT IS ONE THING TO PROSECUTE A GUILTY PERSON who has committed a horrendous crime AND QUITE ANOTHER, to use extremely repugnant, shocking, criminal detail and wily tactics to create bias against an innocent suspect. Murder is undeniably a heinous crime. But it is reliable evidence, not sickening, sensational detail, pieced together to implicate the weakest or the most vulnerable, which should ultimately determine who is convicted and who is not. When every objective observer cannot avoid the conclusion that the prosecution of Guy Paul Morin has not advanced the course of justice, then something has definitely gone awry.


THE PRESSURE IS ON. A high profile crime demands a solution. The community is justifiably frightened. Crime victims justifiably deserve justice. As long as the guilty party is successfully targeted, justice is well served. When an innocent suspect is aggressively targeted, justice is well denied. Indeed, a wrongful conviction is a violent intrusion upon an innocent victim and upon an entire family that is forced to wake up to the nightmare of a persecution each and every single day of the year. In the meantime, actual murderers are free to live or kill again as they please. The obvious, rhetorical question of course, is why would anybody persecute an innocent person? To be sure, under normal circumstances, the idea of framing an innocent person sounds like a bizarre conspiratorial theory. But when circumstances become unbearably frustrating, the "why" is naturally replaced by "why not" and the unthinkable is anxiously embraced. The motivation behind a highly emotional trial is not necessarily justice or reason, but a relentless determination to prove guilt in the courts, whether the verdict is justified or not. It may sound bizarre, but when human emotions and legal tactics dictate motivation, the determination of guilt or innocence is highly arbitrary. Clearly, it is not a zealous prosecution or a zealous defence which defines the legitimacy of a verdict, but a fair and comprehensive analysis of evidence. When the potential influence of prejudice, ignorance, fraud, miscalculation, indifference, blind trust, secrecy, deception and corruption is ignored, the distinction between a legitimate prosecution and an abusive persecution dissolves.

They say the devil is in the detail, and it is literally true when we fail to think in a comprehensive, rational manner. The mind-numbing emotional pain, the horror and the terror that a brutal, senseless murder provokes, has the capacity to overpower reason and makes it extremely difficult to allow for the time and persistent effort which may or may not produce enough evidence to get to the bottom of a murder mystery. The ceaseless public demand for justice and revenge, creates the most trying of all circumstances. And through all the mayhem, we expect our police officers to be rational, to maintain composure and to prove their effectiveness by satisfying our need to feel secure. In short, we want them to tell us who did it, as soon as possible, and if they do not, we question their effectiveness.

It is through this pressure cooker, that answers to devastating questions are explored in the glare of sensational media coverage. If emotional police officers suspend rational judgement, it is because they are human. It may be difficult for law abiding citizens to accept the fact that the police are as error prone as anyone else, but they are. It may be difficult to believe that the police can be as corrupt as anyone else, but they can. It may be difficult to believe that they do not always tell the truth, but they do not.


MORIN CLAIMS THAT HE IS INNOCENT and that he has been framed. There is no compelling reason, beyond the misperception that Morin's claim is an unbelievable conspiracy theory, to doubt Guy Paul Morin. In actual fact, the claim that Morin was framed is not a conspiracy theory, but the testimony of Guy Paul Morin. And unless that testimony is seriously disputed or proven to be a lie, there is no reason to disbelieve it. Charged in 1984, convicted in 1992, the frivolity of the evidence against Morin reflects an unprecedented legal fiasco which has wastefully drained scarce manpower, resources, money and time. And the honourable facade of the people who are evidently responsible for framing Morin, has survived relatively little scrutiny. Self-possessed and self- deluded, they evidently gloated as they framed the "evidence" in a manner which satisfied their peculiar convictions to the point where they finally "got their man", after the longest running murder trial in Canadian history. But even though Guy Paul Morin was eventually prosecuted, his integrity is still ahead and shoulders above the witnesses who testified against him. That in itself, strongly suggests that Guy Paul Morin was framed. If he is in prison, it is clearly not because he has been proven guilty, but because of the enormous gap between the politics of self-rationalization and justice. It is in fact difficult to cite a case where that gap is wider, or more apparent. Morin was convicted, yet he is the only key player who emerged from the entire ordeal, with his credibility intact. He is the only person who has not consistently slanted, distorted or manipulated his testimony, to suit some outlandish defence or prosecution theory. There is absolutely no reason to doubt the testimony of Guy Paul Morin, yet Guy Paul Morin has been sentenced to serve time for murder. It is such repulsive, bizarre contradictions which make the conviction of Guy Paul Morin, an evident perversion of justice.

Even the credibility of Leo McGuigan, the prosecutor who celebrated the conviction of Morin with a beer, pales in comparison to the integrity of Guy Paul Morin. McGuigan is a tough, tenacious prosecutor who is loyal, not to the determination of truth, but to the adversarial system of justice. His single- minded drive to prosecute a particular suspect is so fierce, that he matter-of-factly determines the credibility of testimony in terms of whether it can be used to implicate a particular suspect. If it can, the evidence, as far as Leo McGuigan is concerned, is credible. Evidence which does not support the theory of the prosecution, is erroneously disputed or ignored. In the Morin trials however, evidence was not simply ignored, slanted or disputed, it was also tampered with; "Potentially crucial clues collected at the site -a cigarette butt, a lighter, a credit card slip, a milk carton or was it a cigarette pack? -were lost, misidentified or disappeared.1

  1Toronto Sun, 31/7/92, p.86

In the Scott Peterson case, the media has not done a very good job sorting out truth and fiction. Perhaps, it is because reporters are free to lie. Indeed, since a Florida Appeals Court ruled that there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major, press organization, reporters like Ted Rowlands are free to lie, conceal and distort information. The fickle effort to challenge Scott Peterson's credibility has certainly exposed the deception that the media routinely disseminates.

Modesto and Berkeley police went to a marina on San Francisco Bay to investigate Peterson's claim that he was fishing at the time his wife disappeared. No details were made available about what detectives might have found out.

"At this point, he is not a suspect," Detective Doug Ridenour said. Police said they had no evidence of foul play in the disappearance.

Needless to say, Scott was not arrested because his alibi proved to be true.

Regardless, the police and the media refused to expose the obvious and promoted stories about the absence of salt water, on Peterson's boat. Needless to say, Ted Rowlands and the police were looking for a way to destroy Scott Peterson's alibi, and the current hypocrisy of trying to use Scott's alibi to hang him is ultimately disgusting, when you consider the fact that his wife was evidently kidnapped and nobody was looking for her because people like Ted Rowlands promote lies.

CNN was so impressed by Ted Rowlands' ability to keep creating the false impression that an innocent man was guilty, that they hired him. Never, has anyone demonstrated a better capacity to keep hitting the same dead horse over the head over and over again, without result -Rowlands has certainly earned the right to work for CNN. A good teleprompter that does not pause for thought, is hard to find.

As late as May 16, 2003, Stanislaus County District Attorney James C. Brazelton confirmed that the Modesto Police Department was continuing their investigation in the Laci Peterson case by returning to search the San Francisco Bay for evidence. It was called a joint operation utilizing other Law Enforcement agencies and some civilian assets. Why was Scott Peterson arrested, prior to solving the case?

According to Defense Attorney Steven Cohen, "People tend, especially people who have committed a murder, not to give information that puts the investigators and the police closer to the murder scene, they want to shift them away from the murder scene. So if he really did this, he wouldn't have directed the police to that location."

In other words, people who cultivate the obsession to get away with murder would have deliberately directed the police to that location.

The Police found Laci's body on what would have been Chandra Levy's 26th birthday, and that should have produced the level of humility that the situation demanded. Like the forensically useless, "chance" discovery of Chandra Levy's body, the body of Laci Peterson mysteriously turned up, not because the police proved to be competent, but because somebody wanted to implicate Scott Peterson.

This malicious collusion between the police and the media would have been devastating and extremely incriminating without Scott Peterson's solid alibi and the fact that it is conveniently ignored merely reflects the fact that he is one of many innocent convicts.  


THE GENERAL, authoritative willingness to engage a battle to fraudulently manipulate evidence, was perhaps most poignantly exposed in 1982, during the sensational trial of Neil Cameron Proverbs. Proverbs was convicted for possessing a weapon dangerous to the public peace, and prosecutor McGuigan, responded to the verdict with characteristic aplomb; "The fact is the administration of justice shows that it really works".2 But the Ontario Appeal Court overturned the guilty verdict, and exposed the fact that McGuigan's blind faith in the system, was rather presumptuous. Clearly, the administration of justice is subject to perversion, and the Proverbs case is certainly illuminating, in terms of exploring the method and manner in which justice is potentially perverted. The initial Proverbs trial was followed by the revelation that Crown Witness Marvin Elkind had lied under oath.3 The implications of bolstering a case on the strength of perjured testimony, are extremely serious and disturbing. Dishonest witnesses pervert justice, and one must seriously question the competency or even the integrity of anybody who uses the testimony of a fast-talking liar, to produce evidence.

To prove that Guy Paul Morin was framed, one requires specifics, and they will be provided, albeit sparingly. The simple fact of the matter is, that a complete disclosure of specifics is an extremely unrealistic expectation, in the absence of a general willingness to tell the truth, the whole truth... In the alternative, what must be carefully scrutinized is the credibility of the major players, and that is the focus of this work. What will ultimately be determined is that there is no reliable evidence which even remotely suggests that Guy Paul Morin is a murderer. And why is Morin a convicted murderer? The answer is rather clear; fear and paranoia, inspired by a senseless, brutal unsolved murder, made Morin a suspect, erroneous assumptions, fraud and deceit, made him a convicted murderer. On the surface, what has occurred is an unbelievable, unfathomable travesty of justice, but on close examination, the fiasco is entirely understandable, albeit unjustifiable. Human beings often seek to vindicate erroneous assumptions, rather than to engage a more trying, time-consuming, objective evaluation which promotes a reliable judgment. Indeed, the path to promoting a perversion of justice, is easily engaged. All it takes is a single, frustrated "honourable" person to erroneously accept the belief that Morin is in fact a repulsive murderer. Given an unyielding mindset, one is more likely to do whatever is necessary, to convict the so-called repulsive murderer, and authorities who go along with, rather than dispute the agenda of an "honourable" person are evidently a dime a dozen. Unfortunately however, it takes much more than admirable or honourable motives and the willingness to engage a persistent, manipulative, drive to prosecute, to promote justice. The credibility of a prosecution is determined through a careful, comprehensive analysis, not through the zeal to convict, and a perversion of justice, is a perversion despite the so-called honourable motives of so-called honourable people.

2The Toronto Star, 17/11/82, p. A-16
3The Toronto Star, 30/6/83. p. A-ll  


WHAT MOTIVATES Leo McGuigan, a fiercely "honourable" man who is well known for his capacity to prosecute? Whatever it is, it certainly is not the drive to discover the whole truth. His record is very clear. The only indisputable is a fierce, relentless determination to prosecute. Ironically, Mr. McGuigan's talents are responsible for the fact that he can be either good or bad, depending upon the defining circumstances; good when a particular defendant is in fact guilty, bad when he prosecutes an innocent person. If Mr. McGuigan fails to uphold the integrity of his position, it is because he has evidently decided to presume that every suspect is guilty and that every investigative impropriety is simply, to use one of his favourite arguments, a "red herring" .What McGuigan ultimately promotes, when he assumes that every suspect is guilty and every authority is beyond reproach, is an "on demand" capacity to pervert justice.

If anyone is directly aware of the potential to pervert justice, it should be Leo McGuigan. In 1982, he was responsible for convicting Neil Proverbs, and that was atrial that put the entire justice system under an embarrassing spotlight. The judicial corruption allegations that the Proverbs case recorded, are staggering. Proverbs set out to defend himself against a weapons charge by proving that the police officers who testified against him had lied, so he established an elaborate "sting" operation which produced 37 hours of secretly recorded videotape. The tapes effectively put the credibility of the entire justice system under a microscope, and even a common unspeakable like judicial corruption, became a subject of scrutiny. Evidence which included the recorded testimony of police officers discussing and bragging about their abilities to lie convincingly, do not exactly reinforce faith in the justice system. The authorities made light of these so-called tales of judicial corruption and repeatedly suggested that they were mere fictions, but these "denials " clearly lacked credibility. Neil Proverbs was facing a charge of possessing a weapon dangerous to the public peace, and videotaped evidence recorded Sergeant George Reynolds advising Proverbs on how to beat the rap. According to Reynolds, the idea is not to deny police evidence, because the police tend to be believed, but to "blunt" and "circumvent" it.4 These tapes, which actually show police officers practicing the corruption they preached, are evidently too substantial to erroneously dismiss. Officers who counsel an accused criminal on how to fabricate evidence or to create "believable" stories in order to evade criminal prosecution, demonstrate extreme contempt for the legitimate administration of justice. Indeed, according to the philosophy that Sergeant George Reynolds promoted, a criminal verdict is evaded or secured through the coordinated, manipulative capacity to "explain away" legitimate evidence. Yet Leo McGuigan simply called all evidence of corruption, a "red herring." And so he successfully convicted Neil Proverbs. And so he successfully convicted Guy Paul Morin. And all the legitimate evidence which suggested that Guy Pau Morin was not guilty was simply "explained away".
4The Toronto Star, 7/9/82, p. A-10


PROSECUTOR Leo McGuigan may call corruption a "red herring" that is easily ignored, but it is not. It is a fact of life which deserves careful consideration, even though the willingness that the courts have consistently demonstrated is the determination and the capacity to evade a full disclosure of the issue, by keeping the public in the dark as much as possible. In terms of the Proverbs case, the general public was effectively denied the opportunity to appreciate the scope and potential implication of judicial corruption allegations, as only 5 of the 37 hours of videotaped evidence, were ever released to the media.4 But that alone was sufficient to effectively explode the myth that the integrity and impartiality of all police officers, judges and Crown attorneys is beyond reproach. The following list of allegations, disclosed through the few tapes that the media did manage to get a hold of, speak for themselves.

Policemen falsify their notes, leave blanks to be filled in latter or rewrite entire notebooks in order to insert what they want. Suspects can be put on a "legal treadmill" in which charges are kept in the legal system without ever coming to a conclusion.

Policemen, particularly partners, do whatever is necessary to back each other up, including falsifying evidence.

Victims of crime may even be supplied with appropriate clothing if it is required to fit in with the evidence.5

While some authorities like to dispute these so-called fictions, the potential credibility of many of the allegations is bolstered by other criminal cases that echo corrupt or unreasonable practices. Susan Nelles, for example, is well aware of the fact that "some officers arrest people who show what the officers consider impudence by suggesting they want to call their lawyer".6 Also, the fact that dishonest police officers do not hesitate to falsify their notes is clearly indisputable -and this is certainly not a red herring to the proper administration of justice, no matter what Prosecutor Leo McGuigan says. Indeed, even the Morin case is polluted by a police officer who evidently rewrote his notebook, in order to insert what he wanted. As lawyer Clayton Ruby has disclosed; "it was discovered that sometime between the preliminary inquiry and Guy Paul Morin's first trial, Sgt. Michalowsky rewrote his notes at home so they would include this.(new declaration which disputed previous testimony previously given under oath) He made many other changes as well.7

While many of the Proverbs tape allegations of corruption are indisputable, others are not easily demonstrable. For example, the claim that certain authorities are more concerned with clearing "police slates" than with solving crime, is difficult to conclusively verify or dispute. When the thirst to obtain a conviction is fiercely single-minded however, authorities have been known to conceal evidence which points to the innocence of the accused, and the ultimate consequence of this practice is that the primary motivation is evidently not to solve the crime, but to clear the "slate." If it is not glaringly obvious, it is because failure to disclose cases rely upon extreme secrecy, and in the absence of an information "leak" , or a thorough examination of the evidence, nobody ever finds out about them.

If the Proverbs case illustrates anything at all, it is the fact that corrupt officials practice the ability to secure criminal convictions through fraudulent, rather than through legitimate means. Clearly, in the face of slanted testimony, perjury, and judicial corruption, a trial verdict has the potential to reflect nothing, beyond an astounding perversion of justice. In particular, the implication of judicial corruption stories which include such extreme perversions like the claim about a judge who "listens to police in his chambers before a case and makes up his mind beforehand", are bloodcurdling.8 To be sure, the initial reaction to such a seemingly outrageous claim is to accept the fact that it is nothing beyond a cruel joke. But when one carefully examines the extreme bias of certain judges, it is necessary to question the source of their evidently predisposed commitments. And perhaps the most serious allegation that the Proverbs trial exposed is the claim that officers lie on the witness stand and that they plant evidence -a degree of corruption which provides the capacity to frame an innocent person. In terms of the Morin case, the judicial corruption stories that the Proverbs trial exposed are extremely relevant, particularly since the Ontario Provincial Police charged Police Sergeant Michalowsky, one of the people who had his hands on the evidence against Morin, with perjury and with obstructing justice. Unlike the charge against Morin, who was arrested simply because he was a suspect, the charges against Michalowsky were based on evidence of corruption.   

4Globe and Mail, 26/10/83, p.5.
5Globe and Mail, 17/11/82, p. A-10.
6Globe and Mail, 17/11/82, p. A-10.
7Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 7.
8The Toronto Star, 7/9/82.


ORDINARY PEOPLE who have not been exposed to, or who have not studied the dynamics of corruption, do not appreciate how easy it is for dishonest people to pervert justice through tactics like "explaining away" legitimate evidence, or lending credibility to illegitimate evidence. Citizens who generally rely upon the police and the justice system to tell them who is corrupt and who is not, are unsuspecting targets that are easily manipulated by judges or prosecutors of dubious integrity or impartiality. Perhaps D.H. Lawrence, a master at identifying the supremacy of instinct and emotion over reason in human relationships, put it as bluntly and as unkindly as possible when he said;

The public, which is feebleminded like an idiot, will never be able to preserve its individual reactions from the tricks of the exploiter. The public is always exploited and always will be exploited. ...Why? Because the public has not enough wit to distinguish between mob-meanings and individual-meanings. The mass is forever vulgar, because it can't distinguish between its own original feelings and feelings which are diddled into existence by the exploiter.

And so, it is important to carefully examine the feelings "diddled into existence" by prosecutor Leo McGuigan who brilliantly exploited common ignorance about corruption, and shamelessly downgraded the fact that the Morin case has all the earmarks of a fraudulently secured prosecution. According to the party line that McGuigan towed, it is not realistic to believe a defence which has "besmirched the integrity of dozens of police, forensic scientists and well- intentioned civilians.9 Like George Reynolds, the discredited Police sergeant who had told alleged criminal Neil Proverbs, "that a citizen's word against that of a police officer has no chance", McGuigan essentially told the jury that the prosecution is always right.10 In other words, Leo McGuigan besmirched the integrity of Guy Paul Morin, not through a reasonable analysis of evidence or through proof of guilt, but because, in his infinite wisdom, he always operates on the premise that the prosecution is always correct and always unchallengeable, no matter what. Despite the nonsensical assertions that McGuigan has evidently embraced however, as long as evidence of guilt is misleading, is frivolous or has been fraudulently manufactured, Morin is not guilty.

Clearly, any objective observer who looks beyond the unfounded suspicion, the frenzy and the bias which surrounds the conviction of Morin, cannot avoid the conclusion that the verdict reflects a judicial perversion. When the most unimpeachable, credible witness throughout the entire "comedy of errors" legal fiasco of a prosecution, is the integrity of Guy Paul Morin, the proper administration of justice has undeniably failed to work. Popular frenzy, manipulated by frustrated people who go to any length to justify frivolous opinion, may recruit and exploit the prejudices of every so-called concerned citizen, but that is all it may do. It cannot determine justice or reason or objectivity. Anyone can surround himself or herself with a gathering of narrow-minded "village idiots" who matter-of-factly ignore every challenging assessment, but this alliance, that McGuigan asserts as the paragon of integrity, is actually nothing more than a rumour-mongering mob that facilitate perversions of justice. Indeed, if one exploits the prejudices of so-called concerned citizens, one can promote theories as bizarre and as unfounded as the claim 'Elvis lives' and produce a jury that ultimately accepts the fraud. The indisputable capacity to manipulate and to pervert truth and justice is neither a myth nor a conspiracy theory, and it is about time to acknowledge the fact. If we continue to ignore or to grossly underestimate the influence of corruption, we will ultimately be subject to legal perversions rather than to the rule of law.

9Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 8.
10The Toronto Star, 16/11/82, p.A 1.


PROSECUTOR Leo McGuigan's capacity to distort a simple conversation and to produce what he portrays as proof of Morin's guilt, is mind-numbing. A conversation between Morin and concerned citizen Mandy Paterson, illustrates the fact. According to McGuigan, Morin told suspicious "sleuth" Mandy Paterson that Christine died on the day she was abducted, October 3, 1984. This "lead" prompted McGuigan to dramatically assert;

Ladies and gentlemen, when the forensic pathologists, anthropologists and police cannot say for sure when she was murdered, how can that man who sits in that box know that. Only two people could have known that. The killer and Christine Jessop.11

This dramatic presentation is certainly a powerful addendum to the suggestion that the prosecution is always right and always credible, but on close examination, it is simply a distortion of the evidence. In fact, the testimony provided by Paterson in 1986 suggests the exact opposite of this dramatic, McGuigan assertion. In 1986 according to Paterson, Morin had claimed that Christine's body "was too badly decomposed to tell" if she had been sexually assaulted.12 Consequently, if we apply the McGuigan tactic to a simple conversation between Paterson and Morin, it is important to acknowledge the following;

Ladies and Gentlemen, if that man who sits in that box, has to rely upon forensic pathologists, anthropologists and the police to tell him about the circumstances surrounding Christine Jessop's murder, how can we stand here today and accuse him when he is clearly ignorant of information that only the killer or killers possess.

McGuigan's tendency to twist and turn in a manner which acknowledges the reverse of what is evidently credible, may be dramatic enough to manipulate an unsuspecting jury, but that is all. His tactics do not withstand the scrutiny of an objective analysis. When Morin told Mandy Paterson that he could not conclusively determine whether Christine Jessop had been sexually assaulted, he clearly echoed, not the knowledge of a murderer but the determination of chief forensic pathologist, Dr. Hillsdon-Smith, who noted;

Due to the state of decomposition of the body and attacks on the body by animals, it could not be said from observations of the body whether acts of sexual intercourse had taken place.13

Ironically, it is the Crown's contention that Christine Jessop had been sexually assaulted, which potentially contradicts forensic pathology evidence.

The testimony of well-intentioned witnesses like Mandy Paterson was thoroughly twisted and manipulated to fit in with the Crown contention that Morin is a callous, uncaring killer. When, for example Morin did not respond to Mandy's questions in a manner which she deemed to be appropriate she claimed that Morin "sounded like he didn't care... like it happened every day."14 And the only thing that Morin had said to provoke this assessment was; "Things like that happen. What can you do? She was a sweet, innocent little girl."

Morin may not wear his sleeve on his shoulder in public, but Mandy's assessment evidently rests more on ignorance than on facts. The most horrendous, repulsive, disgusting, brutal crimes and injustices imagineable are indeed a daily occurrence, and if Mandy has her head buried in the sand, it is her problem, not Morin's fault. Having just finished reading a local community newspaper this afternoon, one of the stories dealt with a 30-year old woman who was abducted, beaten, raped and abandoned in afield where she was stung by over two hundred bees.15 "Things like that happen. What can you do?" For starters, hang the guilty pervert, not the peculiar neighbour who shocks the self-righteous, "middle class" sensibilities of people like Mandy Paterson.  

11The Toronto Star, 19/7/92.
12Globe and Mail, 17/1/86.
13Globe and Mail, 23/1/86.
14Toronto Sun, 17/1/86.
15The Liberal, 30/8/92. p.13


CLEARLY, under the scope of analysis, the inescapable absurdity of the case against Morin is undeniable. To cite one example of the mythology that the Crown promoted as fact, Guy Paul Morin allegedly screamed in anguish, on the night of Christine Jessop's funeral. This incredible distortion of fact, which did not even exist as an allegation on a police report, during the first attempt to prosecute Morin in 1986, was evidently nothing more than an afterthought fabrication which sought to bolster the case against the accused.

Christine Jessop was buried on January 7, 1985, and the prosecution suggestion that evidence of Morin's guilt was gathered on that particular day, demands a monumental leap of the imagination. Clearly, as late as March of 1985, the police were so uncertain or even desperate to gather information about Jessop's killer or killers, that they enlisted the support of FBI agent John Douglas, to create a profile of the likely killer. The suggestion that anguished cries had determined the guilt of Morin as early as January of 1985, is absolutely absurd. If evidence of Morin's guilt was so clear by January of 1985, why did it take the police six months to charge Morin? And even when Morin was arrested, the so-called evidence against him was extremely frivolous and absurdly speculative, it was not as air tight as his so-called "anguished cries" imply. If the Crown relied more on conclusions established through a competent investigation, and less on the capacity to promote unreasonable speculation to an unsuspecting jury, the claim that Morin is in fact a murderer, would carry weight. As it stands, the claim that Morin is un uncaring, cold- blooded murderer is an absurd fabrication or speculation which collapses at the sight of a reasonable assessment.

In the final analysis, the man that the Crown has accused of murder is not bitter, not vengeful, has no history of violence or mental illness or criminal behaviour and has never shown sexual interest in children. Clearly, the absolutely groundless conviction that Guy Paul Morin is in fact guilty of murder, collapses at the sight of reason.


GENUINE evidence which relates to the Morin trial is hard to come by. The credibility of the evidence against Morin was seriously compromised by Sergeant Michael Michalowsky, the officer who was responsible for handling physical exhibits seized during the investigation into the death of Christine Jessop. One of the exhibits was a cigarette butt found near the body of the victim. But because Morin was a non-smoker and the butt did not fit in with Crown speculation, Michalowsky "explained away" this legitimate evidence by claiming that it was "a rather recently dropped cigarette butt" probably left behind by one of the investigating officers."15 It was a nice try, but the Ontario Provincial Police didn't bite and Sergeant Michalowsky was charged with perjury and with obstructing justice. Unlike the frivolity of the evidence against Morin, the evidence which supported the charges against Michalowsky was compelling. According to Sergeant Tom Cameron, he was unwittingly led to believe by his superiors that he had dropped a cigarette butt at the site in question, but further investigation revealed that he had clearly not. According to Cameron, the butt had already been discovered even before he reached the site, not to mention that it was not even his brand.

Despite the obvious fact that evidence was mishandled, Michalowsky never answered criminal charges because of his highly publicized health ailments. The "butt affair" however, illustrates a pattern of fraud and deceit which gives the suggestion that the evidence against Morin is manufactured, far more substance than it would normally carry. But prosecutor Leo McGuigan conveniently downgrades the potential significance of the fact that the integrity of the keepers and the investigators responsible for the evidence against Morin, had been seriously "besmirched." Clearly, the practice of mishandling physical exhibits seized during a murder investigation reflects a gross perversion of justice and Sergeant Michalowsky's willingness to fabricate evidence, reflects the exact degree of corruption required to frame somebody for murder. The evidence is indisputable. Sergeant Michalowsky initially entered a cigarette butt into evidence. Then he lost it. Then he found it. And testing proved that Michalowsky had re-introduced a fake butt into evidence.16

Such gross manipulations of justice bolster the suggestion that fabricated evidence is ultimately responsible for the conviction of Morin. At the same time, the judicial bias which evidently gave Sergeant Michalowsky the opportunity to successfully evade criminal charges, further stacked the deck against Morin and deprived him the opportunity to mount a fair defence.

In the light of evident fraud, bias and the fact that evidence against Morin was so extremely frivolous that it could not impress anybody, except perhaps the person or persons who may have planted it, the possibility that Morin was framed merits serious consideration. At any rate, even evidence which was conceivably planted, is neither convincing nor conclusive. Hair and fibre evidence introduced at trial proved nothing beyond the confirmation that the Jessops and the Morins were next-door neighbours. There is nothing unusual about a transfer of fibres and hairs between two families, especially since the Morins had visited the Jessops to offer their condolences, months before Guy Paul Morin was arrested. To be sure, the Crown saw it differently and promoted the suggestion that fibres and hairs linked Morin to the abduction and murder of Christine Jessop. Indeed, the insinuation of press headlines like "Trial told hairs in car similar to slain girl's", was very clear.17 But under close scrutiny, hair and fibre evidence was unbelievably frivolous. For example from the hundreds of thousands of fibres which could have been taken from the Morin family car and home, only five microscopic fibres were found to be similar to those found on Christine's clothing.18 Even the wind, is capable of transferring more than a mere "five similar fibres." This "mute witness" evidence, as it was dubbed by the prosecutors, was evidently blind and dumb, as well.

15Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 7..
16Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 7.
17Globe and Mail, 22/1/86.
18Globe and Mail, 23/1/86.


TWO alleged criminals face the criminal justice system. Guy Paul Morin faces a murder charge, Sergeant Michalowsky is charged with perjury and with obstructing justice. Morin is vigorously and relentlessly persecuted (a prosecution which is polluted by the introduction of fraudulent evidence), while the charges against Sergeant Michalowsky were forever stayed, without a trial. Morin was tried, and tried again, and the only presumption that ever surfaced, concerned his alleged guilt. At the same time, the only presumption that surfaced regarding the charges against Michalowsky, concerned his alleged innocence or the understanding that he stood on the right side of the law. Indeed, the impartiality of Justice James Donnelly, who treated the keeper of the evidence against Morin, like a committed war hero, is absolutely astounding. According to the solicitous judge who evidently could not hide his admiration for men like sergeant Michalowsky; "Up in Goderich, where I come from, we say that the tougher the job the better you feel when it's finished.19 Acting as though he and Michalowsky were team members in a shared effort to convict a murderer, the impartiality that a judge is supposed to maintain was nowhere to be found, in the demeanour of Judge Donnelly. The evident alliance between a biased judge, a prosecutor who matter-of-factly dismissed evidence of police wrongdoing, and a police sergeant who had evidently obstructed justice, made an evident mockery out of the administration of justice. Indeed, in the final analysis Guy Paul Morin was not charged, tried and convicted. He was manipulated by an old-boys-network that defended the honour of engaging "battle" rather than the commitment to uphold the integrity of a legal constitution.

The earmark of a "cold warrior" like Judge Donnelly is the willingness to subvert defendant rights. So when a zealous Crown failed to disclose evidence which suggested that a suspect other than Morin was potentially responsible for the abduction of Christine Jessop, Judge Donnelly predictably defended the practice. This tendency to believe that the only purpose of gathering evidence is to secure a conviction, paves a definite path which substantially increases the likelihood of a judicial perversion. If for example, investigators simply highlight evidence which suggests guilt and distort, ignore or conceal evidence which suggests innocence, the only interest which is advanced is the opportunity to secure a fraudulent conviction. Fortunately, the Supreme Court of Canada has clearly denounced this evident opportunity to pervert justice. According to a recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling; "The fruits of an investigation which are in the possession of the Crown are not the property of the Crown for use in securing a conviction, but are the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done.20 Judge James Donnelly however, the person responsible for advising the jury that prosecuted Morin, clearly disparaged the spirit of justice which ultimately provides a defendant the opportunity to mount a fair defense. According to the Judge;

The process for determining guilt should not be frustrated by improper disclosure demands. The lawful process for determining guilt is not to be paralysed by unspecified and insatiable demands for disclosure, or by allegations of failure to provide that quality of disclosure -thereby creating a trial of the investigative and prosecutorial proceedings rather than a trial of the accused.21
The ramifications of this prejudice are very clear and very disturbing. If a trial is first and foremost a "process for determining guilt" , then why have atrial in the first place? Why not simply declare that a defendant is in fact guilty, and get on with it. Justice Donnelly's tendency to suggest that the bringing of a charge is equivalent to a conviction, violates every single worthy principle of justice, which is supposed to guard against arbitrary rulings. In the final analysis, Judge Donnelly is the perfect "hanging judge" , and the only disturbing lapse in the ability to perform his duty is the occasional wrongful conviction, or the "casualty of war" that he is evidently willing to tolerate.

19Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 7.
20Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 7.
21Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 7.


CHARGES against Sergeant Michalowsky provoked an unbearable degree of psychological pain and tension. Indeed, this "cold warrior" of a man was reduced to a sobbing cry baby who did not even suffer the sight of a courtroom, without a doctor by his side. What was the source of this extreme breakdown?

Upon analysis, Michalowsky's reaction is entirely understandable. Evidently guilty as charged, a full accounting threatened to expose, not only his probable guilt, but the chain of corruption which shared his responsibility. Such an accounting is never lightly tolerated. People do not normally sit back and wait out betrayal. They do whatever it takes to avoid the unbearable stress of being exposed, and that potentially placed Michalowsky in serious jeopardy. If for example, Michalowsky was effectively prosecuted, he threatened to expose the conspiracy of silence between authorities who rarely betray one another, despite flagrant obstructions of justice. Indeed, when Michalowsky was charged, he carried the entire weight of the legal fiasco which culminated with the fraudulent conviction of Guy Paul Morin, upon his shoulders.

Clearly, the assumption that Michalowsky alone was responsible for corrupting evidence, is rather naive, and given the probability of a much wider, cooperative involvement, unspeakable implications merit consideration. The ugly part of corruption is the potential to unleash a chain reaction of tragic, cover-up consequences. If this sinister portrayal appears to be more fanciful than factual, do not expect official channels to fair any better. What, for example, is ever accomplished when a public inquiry is suddenly halted because of the suicide or murder of the person in the "hot seat"? And beyond speculation, it is reasonable to assume the fact that acts of corruption are usually followed by the motivation to conceal them, -through legal tactics, fraud, deceit or, if necessary, even through murder. In the final analysis, wherever corruption rears its ugly head, every conceivable perversion is more than mere speculation.

Amazing Grace

BY NOW, the fact that the evidence which was used to implicate Morin is not credible, should be painfully obvious. But the incredulity of the evidence never ceases to amaze. Consider the testimony of Mr. X, a prisoner adjoining the cell of prosecution star witness, pathological liar, Mr. May. According to Mr. May, Guy Paul Morin confessed to murder. Mr May's cellmate, a man identified by the press as a Mr. X, solemnly supports Mr. May's assertion. As a matter of fact, Mr. X was allegedly so distraught over Morin's confession that he buried his head in his pillow as he was reading his bible. Indeed, even jail guards testified that Mr. X was emotionally upset the next morning.

Remarkably, even the judge lend credibility to the testimony of Mr. X. According to the bias of Judge Donnelly, Mr. X should be believed because he "got no benefit yet came to court and testified anyway."18 This farcical testimonial from a so-called impartial judge is absolutely astounding. Indeed, it neatly sums up what is an undisputable legal fiasco, because when the Crown attorney and the Judge lend credibility to the evidently fraudulent testimony of two pathological liars, then the Crown's case is clearly untainted by even the slightest trace of truth. The evidence provided by Mr. May and Mr. X, was described in terms of being a "key peg" for the prosecution.19 Yet this so-called "key peg" evidence was gathered after Morin was charged and jailed. In other words, Guy Paul Morin was charged with murder prior to the existence of "key peg" evidence, and a desperate Crown secured the cooperation of desperate criminals who were willing to do or say anything to curry favour from the authorities. It is difficult to conceive a more apparent travesty of justice, or to fathom a scenario where judicial prejudice against an accused is more obvious, or to have faith in a judge who claims that convicts who are willing to say absolutely anything to get out of prison, have no reason to lie.

In 1986, the people who had allegedly heard Morin confess to murder were identified as Larry Leyte and Robert Dean May. Both were extremely desperate and willing to do or say anything to get out of prison. Indeed, Mr. May removed all doubt about his single- minded motive when he told police; "Before I sign anything I want to be out of here. You know, get me off and I'll do what you want."20 The Crown promised to drop two out of three outstanding charges against May and this pathological fraud artist, eagerlyand desperately claimed that Morin had confessed to murder. Larry Leyte was no less desperate and no less eager to curry the same sort of favour from the authorities. Indeed, his plea to the police was even more desperate; "You get me out of here into a half-way house. I will give you a written statement signed, I will appear in court, I'd give you anything. I've got to get out of here, my nerves are shot.21 If press reports which claimed a total of two prisoners had heard Morin confess are accurate, then Mr. X and Larry Leyte are one and the same. Indeed, their modus operandi is remarkably similar. Like Mr. X, Larry Leyte sought to bolster his credibility through religious appeals. According to his touching performance before the Ontario Supreme Court Jury; "I can't pass judgment on any man. I'II leave it to a court of law and God in heaven."22 Prior to promoting his God-fearing integrity however, Mr Leyte had told police that he had no qualms about seeing Morin "rot in hell" and if his demands were not met he could easily forget about Morin's alleged confession. In his own words: "I'm going to have to try to forget I ever heard it."23

Is anyone really gullible enough to lend credibility to such criminal con artists who are willing to remember or forget whatever it takes, to achieve a self-serving agenda? Clearly, the credibility of pathological liars with selective, favour-induced memories, is as certifiable as a pack of lies. Yet the Crown and an "impartial" judge suggested that the testimony of two pathological liars, was as credible as what one would expect from a certifiable saint like Mother Theresa. If that is clearly not a certifiable fraud, then what is?

A prosecutor need only exploit the suspicions and prejudices of ill or well-intentioned citizens and authorities and acknowledge the testimony of pathological liars, to blame any single person in the world with murder. A legitimate conviction relies upon a thorough, persistent, competent investigation, and upon reliable, astute witnesses who provide credible evidence. Indeed, a legitimate conviction relies upon every single thing that has failed to materialize in the prosecution of Guy Paul Morin. If that is not clear evidence of the fact that Morin was wrongfully convicted, then what is?

In the face of any reasonable analysis, the Crown's case against Morin is so absolutely farcical, there is not a legitimate court in the world that would buy into the apparent "con job" campaign to convict Morin.

18The Toronto Star, 23/7/92, p. A 5.
19The Toronto Star, 23/7/92, p. A 5.
20Globe and Mail, 15/1/86, pA 12.
21Globe and Mail, 15/1/86, pA 12.
22Globe and Mail, 15/1/86, pA 12.
23Globe and Mail, 15/1/86, pA 12.


REMARKABLY, (because one expects to find substance in courtroom evidence) all of the evidence which was used to suggest Morin's guilt, was as frivolous as the testimony of the pathological liars with the favour- induced memories. To cite an example, forensic pathologist Dr. Hans Sepp determined that it was not possible to reach a conclusion about whether Christine's injuries were caused by a pocketknife or by a much more substantial weapon like a knife with a ten-inch blade.24 Guy Paul Morin owned a pocketknife. But what a remarkable leap it is, from a simple innocuous fact, to the determination that Morin is a murderer and his pocketknife is a murder weapon. Clearly, according to any objective analysis, this so-called evidence of guilt determines absolutely nothing beyond the fact that Guy Paul Morin was the owner of a pocketknife. But then the Crown seized the pocketknife, entered it into evidence, and created a deadly murder weapon. The Crown applied the same sort of a nit-picking, single-minded analysis to forensic evidence which was aptly described by defence lawyer Clayton Ruby, in the following terms;

Aspects of forensic evidence that the Crown says indicated Mr. Morin was in contact with Christine at the time of her death are so weak that you wouldn't hang a dog on it.25

24Globe and Mail, 4/27/92, p. A 8.
25Globe and Mail, 6/2/86, p. A 20.


"Hang A Dog"

The particular problem of investigators who want to "hang a dog" , is the lack of credible evidence which suggests that Morin is in fact guilty of murder. The particular problem of a suspect who is aware of his innocence, is the possibility of being framed, a prospect which is rarely, if ever contemplated. And so, Morin naively assumed that he had nothing to worry about. Interrogated for six hours without a lawyer, he confidently faced his accusers and volunteered disclosures he expected would clear him of erroneous charges. Guy Paul Morin offered the Durham Regional police samples of his hair, saliva and blood and expected to be treated fairly in return. According to Morin;

I trusted you guys from the start. And I trust you with those samples I gave you. Because really, what the hell! If they match up with the girl, put me in. I mean it. Put me in forever!26

When investigators conned Morin into thinking that one of his own hairs was found on Christine's body, (The only provable conclusion is that the hair in question was not unlike Morin's. The assertion that it was actually Morin's is inconclusive.) Morin did not break down and confess or panic, but characteristically thought out aloud;

That I can't explain. I mean, really, I cannot tell you that -because I told you I've never touched the kid. She has never been in my car. ...I'd have to be really mental to do something like that -pull a hair out and throw it on her body.27

The integrity of this spontaneously logical assessment, provides a stark contrast to the evident mishandling of the evidence by Durham Regional Police Officer, Sergeant Michalowsky. The logical extension of Morin's think-out-loud disclosures is quite apparent. -Morin did not kill Christine, Morin did not plant his hair on her necklace, if a hair was planted, someone who was responsible for handling physical exhibits, must know about it.

Indeed, in the final analysis, only someone who had knowledge about planted evidence, could conclusively say that Morin's hair was recovered from the body of the victim. Evidence of matching hair does not provide a conclusive identification. Indeed, even two of Christine's own classmates had hairs that matched the so-called "mute" wi tness that allegedly proved Morin's guilt.28 Ironically, from a purely rational point of view, the most comprehensive assertion that one can make about hair evidence is that it was planted, to make it appear as though conclusive evidence against Morin, in fact existed.

And while a zealous Crown finally convinced a jury, after failing the first time around, that a single hair was a "mute wi tness " which tied Morin to the Jessop murder, an objective analysis suggests that Guy Paul Morinwas successfully framed. Excuse-mongers, or people who practice the ability to "explain away" evidence, will no doubt insist that a bungled investigation simply reflects the human propensity to err, but when the propensity to err defines a consistent pattern, in terms of the propensity to mishandle and misrepresent the evidence, it becomes the propensity to commit fraud.

27Globe and Mail, 4/27/92, p. A 8.
28Globe and Mail, 6/2/86, p. A 20.


IN RETROSPECT, the ability to convict Morin, relied on the capacity to frame him. The clear absence of evidence which even suggested, let alone proved his guilt had clearly defined two distinct prosecutorial capacities; in the absence of credible evidence, the charge against Guy Paul Morin could have been dropped because there was no justifiable reason to detain him, or evidence could have been manufactured to implicate him in the murder. The charge against Morin was certainly never dropped, and there is still no reason to believe that it was ever warranted.

Police had been steered towards Morin by the victim's mother Janet Jessop, who claimed that her neighbours were "weird."29 Janet Jessop had allegedly suspected everyone, including her relatives at one point or another, but her evidently irrational assertions were never supported by evidence. In 1990, four years after a jury found Morin to be not guilty, her response to a reporter who wondered about her insistence that Morin "did it," was, "Because I know he did."30 Such frivolous standards of proof do not even merit attention, but the emotion and the frenzy that the Jessop murder provoked, demanded answers and justice not questions and an unsolved murder file. The only surefire alternative to answers and justice, is answers and the perception of justice. But like a high-strung mob that lynches an innocent suspect, the perception of justice is a perversion.

Since the discovery that Christine Jessop was tragically murdered, horror, fear and suspicion gripped the tiny Queensville community where Christine had lived and everybody's neighbour was suddenly a potential murderer. The horror was eternal. A nine year old girl had been brutally murdered and nothing said or done, could bring her back. The fear and suspicion however was potentially manageable, and the authorities did their very best to resolve it, by seeking to bring the killer or killers to justice. On January 1, 1985, the police located Christine's body and a month latter, they posted a $50,000 reward for information leading to an arrest. In March of 1985, police asked FBI agent John Douglas from the Violent Crimes Behavioral Sciences unit in Virginia, to piece a profile of the killer. According to John Douglas, the killer was likely someone from Queensville and someone that Christine knew. On April 11, 1985, the police released the profile to the media. It described a 19-26 year old unemployed male, and that very same day, police claimed that their suspect list had been reduced to "less than five people" and that they expected "to make an arrest in less than a month."31 On April 22,1984, Guy Paul Morin, one of the suspects on the final "short list" was arrested.

The investigation which lead to the arrest of Morin was inept, to say the very least. Remarkably, Morin was evidently arrested, not because the police had evidence that he was in fact the murderer, but because in their opinion, evidence which suggested that he was not, did not exist. Supt. Doug Bulloch disclosed this rather odd investigative practice when he said; "You don't find suspects as much as you eliminate them.32 The arrest of Guy Paul Morin suggested that every other murder suspect had been "eliminated" , but even that was not entirely true. For example, a maladjusted young man who frequented the Queensville area, was missing for most of the day Christine disappeared. A day or two latter, he hosed down the inside of his delivery van, upholstery and all, and about six weeks latter, he disappeared without a trace.33 If Morin had also vanished without a trace, would he too have been dropped from the suspect list? Remarkably, that is what the evidence suggests.

Armed with mere suspicion, the drive to prosecute Morin, was never substantiated with credible evidence. Indeed, the entire campaign was fuelled on the bid to satisfy a blindingly emotional need. For example, according to the police, the psychological profile supplied by the FBI "gave us a good feeling about what we had."34 And as soon as Morin was arrested, the police claimed that the fear and paranoia which had gripped Queensville had subsided and the sense of general satisfaction was described in terms like; "I think there's a great sense of relief now. People will be able to get back to living their normal lives."35

While the singularly emotional drive to prosecute a suspect in a highly publicized murder case prompted relief, it simultaneously paved the road to one of the most obvious judicial perversions in Canadian history. Criminology Professors Thomas Gabor and Julian Roberts, illustrate the dynamics of the judicial capacity to tyrannize, when they say; "when undue pressure is placed on the system to make an arrest and achieve a guilty verdict, wrongful convictions are sure to follow.36 Asserted in a piece titIed "how the innocent end up behind bars," they clearly expose the potential consequences of undue community pressure and excessive zeal on the part of the police and the prosecution. And the trials and tribulations of Guy Paul Morin provide a textbook example of the fact that innocent people do indeed "end up behind bars."

29Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 6.
30Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 6.
31The Toronto Sun, 24/6/85, p.4.
32The Toronto Sun, 24/6/85, p.4.
33Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 7.
34Toronto Sun, 24/4/85, p.5.
35Toronto Sun, 24/4/85, p.5.
36Toronto Star, 12/2/92, p. A 21.


IN THE HANDS of a zealous prosecution, what ultimately matters is not the guilt or the innocence of the suspect, but the prosecutorial capacity to exploit human vulnerability. In that respect, Guy Paul Morin, a naive, eccentric bumpkin, with a speech habit which was so peculiar that it shocked "refined" middle class sensibilities, defense lawyer Clayton Ruby had his work cut out for him. In a world where perception has the capacity to manipulate public opinion, Mr. Ruby was concerned less with the frivolity of the case against Morin and more by the peculiar qualities of the defendant.

It is an unfortunate matter of fact, but people are often judged, not by what they say but by how they say it. With that criterion in mind, prejudicial as it may be, Guy Paul Morin was clearly not your "normal" defendant. Brutally blunt to the point where he appeared to be uncaring, if confronted with news about a tragedy, he was more likely to say, "Oh well, the sun will come out tomorrow" , rather than "Oh yes, isn't that terrible". And if Morin is conceivably insensitive or weird or naive, the enduring quality which survives every scrutiny, is his blunt honesty. At least that much is clearly apparent, not only when he assesses the tragic fate of others, but when he assesses his own as well. Indeed, there does not appear to be a single, hypocritical bone in his body. When asked whether he missed playing the clarinet while in prison, he replied; "At least you can whistle or sing."37 A more "normal " person would have more "appropriately" seethed in anger.

When the prosecutor sought to exploit Morin's alleged insensitivity through the suggestion that he did not join extensive searches to locate Christine's body because he had murdered her and so "there was no purpose in looking," Morin naively countered; " I didn't know Christine was dead. I had no idea. That's an accusation.38 Compared to the Crown's calculating, desperate campaign to paint every single event in terms of assumed guilt, Morin's naive, common sense integrity is refreshingly peculiar. Indeed the contrast between the integrity of the Crown and Guy Paul Morin, is absolutely stark.

Under the glare of an objective microscope, the prosecution claim that Morin did not join the search for Christine because he was the murderer, is patently preposterous. Clearly, an analysis which ignores the ramifications of the investigative police practice deployed in the Morin case, is extremely superficial. Recall that Morin was charged with murder simply because he was not eliminated as a suspect. The addendum claim that this suspect is guilty because his behaviour is suspicious, is simply and frivolously a vicious self-fulfilling prophesy which has little if any, evidential value. Indeed, if one wants to engage the Crown's speculative "detective games" , one can even more convincingly claim that Morin was not the actual murderer, because if he was, that anxious murderer would have feigned concern over the disappearance of Christine Jessop in order to evade suspicion. Or he would have vanished without a trace. Or he would have actively blamed somebody else, to evade suspicion.

Practically every media, every newspaper, every reporter who covered the story, promoted the revelation that Morin had failed to assist the search to locater Christine Jessop, and the consequent suggestion that Morin was a substantial suspect, always managed to seep through. Circumstances which suggested otherwise, were always ignored. If this evident trial through the media has prejudiced justice, then perhaps the media should live up to the responsibility of setting the record straight. At the very least, if Morin is not to be denied the right to be presumed innocent, his guilt should be proven rather than merely assumed. To date, the media has been rather wishy-washy in it's interpretation of the evidence, and its general demeanour has been more akin to supporting, rather than denouncing the "lynch mob" mentality which is evidently responsible for the conviction of Guy Paul Morin. At the same time, the media deserves credit for providing a sufficient quality and quantity of material which provides the opportunity to engage a reasonable assessment of fact. In the face of "time-pressure" constraints, the media has perhaps performed as well as can be expected, and as more evidence emerges, it will hopefully provide more insight and less rumour. If for example, the media accepts the determination that Morin is in fact a murderer, it should perhaps promote evidence of guilt, rather than slanted, prosecutorial stories. On the other hand, if the media determines that the prosecution of Morin is not justifiable, it should demand a stay in the charge against him. Given the possibility that the media has had a hand in prejudicing a legitimate defence, it should perhaps exercise its power to set the record straight.

When Guy Paul Morin was found to be not guilty, the general misleading impression was that Clayton Ruby had "pulled one over" the prosecution with a cynical insanity plea. Under the circumstances as they existed however, one can hardly blame a defence lawyer for doing his utmost to shield a "peculiar" client from the clutches of an overzealous prosecution. Stuck with a client who won awards at agricultural fairs for his salad dressings and pies rather than for his oratorial skills, Morin was conceivably a "crazy neighbour" in the eyes of "normal" expectations, and Clayton Ruby appropriately explored the possibility. And in the final analysis, even if we stretch the imagination and claim that the insanity plea was a cynical defence tactic, it was clearly not as cynical or even as erroneous as the claim that Guy Paul Morin is a murderer.

37Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 6.
38Globe and Mail, 29/1/86.


ORDINARY PEOPLE who have not been exposed to, or who have not studied the dynamics of corruption, do not appreciate how easy it is for dishonest people to pervert justice through tactics like "explaining away" legitimate evidence, or lending credibility to illegitimate evidence. citizens who generally rely upon the police and the justice system to tell them who is corrupt and who is not, are unsuspecting targets that are easily manipulated by judges or prosecutors of dubious integrity or impartiality. Perhaps D.H. Lawrence, a master at identifying the supremacy of instinct and emotion over reason in human relationships, put it as bluntly and as unkindly as possible when he said;

The public, which is feebleminded like an idiot, will never be able to preserve its individual reactions from the tricks of the exploiter. The public is always exploited and always will be exploited. ...Why? Because the public has not enough wit to distinguish between mob-meanings and individual-meanings. The mass is forever vulgar, because it can't distinguish between its own original feelings and feelings which are diddled into existence by the exploiter.

And so, it is important to carefully examine the feelings "diddled into existence" by prosecutor Leo McGuigan who brilliantly exploited common ignorance about corruption, and shamelessly downgraded the fact that the Morin case has all the earmarks of a fraudulently secured prosecution. According to the party line that McGuigan towed, it is not realistic to believe a defence which has "besmirched the integrity of dozens of police, forensic scientists and well- intentioned civilians.9 Like George Reynolds, the discredited Police sergeant who had told alleged criminal Neil Proverbs, "that a citizen's word against that of a police officer has no chance", McGuigan essentially told the jury that the prosecution is always right.10 In other words, Leo McGuigan besmirched the integrity of Guy Paul Morin, not through a reasonable analysis of evidence or through proof of guilt, but because, in his infinite wisdom, he always operates on the premise that the prosecution is always correct and always unchallengeable, no matter what. Despite the nonsensical assertions that McGuigan has evidently embraced however, as long as evidence of guilt is misleading, is frivolous or has been fraudulently manufactured, Morin is not guilty.

Clearly, any objective observer who looks beyond the unfounded suspicion, the frenzy and the bias which surrounds the conviction of Morin, cannot avoid the conclusion that the verdict reflects a judicial perversion. When the most unimpeachable, credible witness throughout the entire "comedy of errors" legal fiasco of a prosecution, is the integrity of Guy Paul Morin, the proper administration of justice has undeniably failed to work. Popular frenzy, manipulated by frustrated people who go to any length to justify frivolous opinion, may recruit and exploit the prejudices of every so-called concerned citizen, but that is all it may do. It cannot determine justice or reason or objectivity. Anyone can surround himself or herself with a gathering of narrow-minded "village idiots" who matter-of-factly ignore every challenging assessment, but this alliance, that McGuigan asserts as the paragon of integrity, is actually nothing more than a rumour-mongering mob that facilitate perversions of justice. Indeed, if one exploits the prejudices of so-called concerned citizens, one can promote theories as bizarre and as unfounded as the claim 'Elvis lives' and produce a jury that ultimately accepts the fraud. The indisputable capacity to manipulate and to pervert truth and justice is neither a myth nor a conspiracy theory, and it is about time to acknowledge the fact. If we continue to ignore or to grossly underestimate the influence of corruption, we will ultimately be subject to legal perversions rather than to the rule of law.

9Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 8.
10The Toronto Star, 16/11/82, p.A 1.

"Chamber of Horrors"

THE PRESS promoted the fact that evidence of insanity was kept from the jury at Morin's second trial, in a manner which suggested that the holdback reflected nothing beyond a calculating defence ploy. The potential ramifications of this cynical view are so disturbing, that it caused Globe and Mail journalist Kirk Makin, to report;

One of many troublesome questions in the wake of the retrial is whether jurors found out about the insanity plea at the first trial and became poisoned toward the defence.44

Denied the opportunity to be disputed, challenged or explained, rumours of insanity have a life of their own, and the only survivable assurance is an imprint of the horror provoked by popular misconceptions about retardation. When you couple misconceived horror with the cynical view that a calculating defence had secured unfair advantage, the potential to seriously prejudice a jury, is rather obvious. Nobody likes to be taken advantage of, and anyone who caught wind of the so-called insanity plea ploy, was probably more willing to neutralize a perceived unfair advantage, by responding in kind. If, for example, the defence could pull these kinds of so-called gimmicks, then it was alright to let the prosecution get away with one or two of its own. But as all eyes focused upon the significance of ploy and counter-ploy, the nature of the so-called insanity evidence was ignored.

There is a certain "perverse logic" to the claim that Morin is insane, but that hinges on the belief that Morin is in fact a murderer. If, for example Guy Paul Morin murdered Christine, then he must also be insane, because he has evidently suppressed all memory of the crime. So-called "normal" people do not rely upon a psychic, repressive mechanism, to protect the mind from intolerable memories. "Normal" people often respond to the need to relieve anxiety by lying. People who are insane, erase every trace of a traumatic memory and are genuinely not able to recall it. It is therefore reasonable to assume that any psychiatrist who sought to reconcile the fact that Morin was charged with murder, and the belief that his denials were authentic, could not skirt around the conclusion that if Morin was actually guilty, he was also insane. Indeed, that is what the psychiatric evidence evidently suggested. As Dr. Basil Orchard, a specialist in criminal psychiatry, indicated to the jury; "If he did it, it has been repressed out of his capacity to recover or remember it."45 What is most striking about the evidence introduced at trial, is the circuity of the psychiatric theories and assumptions. If, for example, Morin did it, then he is insane and capable of brutal murder, and if he is such a perverted murderer, then the abduction and murder of Christine Jessop, was simply a matter of opportunity. The horrific assumption that Morin is capable of killing a little girl produced sensational headlines, and understandably created extreme prejudice against Guy Paul Morin.

Prejudicial assumptions aside, the claim that Guy Paul Morin is capable of bizarre murder is rather preposterous. Unfortunately, repulsive murderers come in all shapes and sizes. They do not float into a neat little psychiatric theory or psychological murder profile which focuses upon the merits of speculative theory and ignores the specifics of a particular case. The observations of criminologist John McGoff, a former detention centre superintendent, define the evident dilemma of any investigator who seeks to identify a murderer when he says;

The most vivid recollection I had, in terms of working with this population (of murderers), I guess is just how ordinary they really were. I don't know what I was expecting but they were not different from any other young person in our custody. To the naked eye, you couldn't distinguish between the child who was skipping school and the individual who had committed murder -who had slaughtered his family, who had decapitated his best friend. They were strikingly ordinary in their presentation and in their appearance. And I remember that feeling that I could never walk down the street again and really understand which person who passes me, has that capacity to kill.46

If they are strikingly ordinary, they are clearly not all peculiar or eccentric or weird. And if we dare to penetrate the prejudices which lead us to suspect Guy Paul Morin, there is absolutely nothing which even remotely suggests that he is capable of, let alone guilty of murder? As a matter of fact, only a serious lapse in reason, could lead a person to confuse an honest, naive, creative human being who has found a constructive outlet through his music, and an extremely deceptive, uncaring, perverted, calculating, cold-blooded murderer.

44Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 8..
45The Toronto Star, 4/2/86, p.A 7.
46CBC News-A film by Daniel Nearing, August 1992.

Suspicious Minds

The tendency to promote sensational tidbits may arouse suspicion and thereby create the impression that the arrest of Guy Paul Morin is justifiable, but these peculiar, anecdotes have not, by any stretch of the imagination, provided proof of Morin's guilt. Headlines like "Redrum's (murder spelled backwards) my cure" are extremely incriminating, in an out of context broadcast, but rather meaningless, upon a closer inspection. Arrested on a mere suspicion or upon the flimsiest of evidence at best, Guy Paul Morin was suddenly thrust into the most trying of all environments imagineable, -a prison cell. And an undercover policeman planted in the very same jail cell did his utmost to secure incriminating evidence. The first tactic of Sergeant Gordon Hobbs was to assume the guise of a man wanted for attempted murder and sexual assault. And having convinced Morin that he was a killer, this "perverted murderer" asked Morin how he deals with his frustrations. Morin allegedly responded in kind; "Me. I just 'redrum' the innocent. That's my cure man -like you."47

Sergeant Hobbs produced tapes with cryptic messages, some of which were barely audible, wherein Morin makes repeated references to the word "redrum" -murder spelled backwards. The source of the foolish commentary however was clearly not personal motivation or intent, but a horror movie The Shining, that Morin had watched, prior to the disappearance of Christine. The attempt to twist and shape stupid commentary, secured under extremely stressful conditions, and to suggest that it denotes a confession, is a bit farfetched. Clearly, even the pretend-murderer Sergeant Hobbs himself, indicated that Morin, the "I'm just like you man" murderer, directly denied having killed Christine Jessop. And in the final analysis, who can imagine carrying on a rational, meaningful conversation in a jail cell, with someone who has painted himself in the light of a repulsive, cold- blooded murderer?

Perhaps Clayton Ruby summed up the rather repulsive practice of seeking to justify the arrest of a person through flimsy "redrum" evidence, in the kindest way possible, when he said;

As I argued to the Jury, one of the difficulties in a case like this is that when the majority of the evidence is gathered after arrest, one can never be sure whether the police are really finding out who committed the crime, or whether all they're finding out is that if you put somebody under enough of a microscope, enough of a spotlight, you will indeed find evidence that looks like something, even though it's not very convincing to a jury.

Indeed, a zealous campaign to vindicate the erroneous assumption that Morin is a murderer, is the quickest route to the production of unreliable evidence. Sergeant Hobbs spend almost four days as Morin's cellmate, and the only so-called proof of guilt that he secured was cryptic, inaudible, nonsensical conversations and the so-called "understanding" that Morin was a murderer. Despite this so-called "implicit" confession however, Morin repeatedly denied guilt in the murder of Christine Jessop. Sergeant Hobbs evidently believes that his unique "understanding" is more substantial than direct denials. But as long as the credibility of Guy Paul Morin survives, an unsubstantiated "understanding" is an extremely frivolous standard of proof.

One month after Sergeant Hobbs failed to get Morin to confess to murder, the police "made a deal with two inmates who agreed to testify about a purported midnight confession from Mr. Morin if they were given lenient treatment."48 The understanding that Hobbs had developed in prison, was finally re-developed or "substantiated," with as little risk of calling any of the authorities liars, as possible.

47The Toronto Star, 24/1/86.
48Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p.A 6.

The Media

The Media EVERY SINGLE reasonable, objective reporter who has carefully examined the trials of Guy Paul Morin, cannot escape the conclusion that his conviction reflects a travesty of justice and that his incarceration is unjustifiable. Excerpts from a story by Toronto Sun reporter Bill Dunphy, reflects the general thrust of the attitude that the Morin trials have generated. According to Dunphy;

In the tragedy that is the Christine Jessop murder, truth and justice both took a severe beating.

A collection of cops and forensic experts thrown into a damnably difficult case proceeded to stumble through it in a textbook example of how not to run a murder investigation.

Barring a confession, we'll never really have anything but the foggiest notion of what happened to a bubbly eight-year-old girl back in 1983, let alone just how or when or why her young life was ended so brutally.

And no matter which way Guy Paul Morin's trial for that murder had ended, it's hard to imagine an objective observer could have any confidence that the truth and justice had been served.49

The widely shared, virtual acknowledgment of the fact that Morin was unjustifiably convicted should provoke outrage, but instead of denouncing the prosecution of Guy Paul Morin, Dunphy ends his piece by describing the trial which registered the conviction of Morin, in the following terms;

A hideously expensive, difficult and astoundingly detailed legal exercise -and really what do we know now? The police are fallible and Christine died at the hands of a monstrously sick killer. We didn't need the trial to know that.50

So, in the final, implicit accounting, the only conceivable result of the trial was the ongoing harassment and unfair prosecution of Guy Paul Morin.

49Toronto Sun, 31/7/92, pp. 85-6.
50Toronto Sun, 31/7/92, pp. 85-6.

Extreme Bias

It is not possible to read A lawyer's story: the perjury charge and Sgt Michalowsky and to avoid the conclusion that Sergeant Michalowsky is guilty of both perjury and of obstructing justice.51 And once again, the evidence points to a single direction; it is not Morin, but his accusers, who more appropriately deserve to be in jail. What a travesty! And indeed, justice is evidently as elusive as Clayton Ruby claims it is, in his exposition about how Michalowsky managed to evade criminal prosecution, -all at the expense of Guy Paul Morin. Because when Michalowsky testified at Morin's second trial, he was presented, not as a convicted perjurer, as he could have been in the absence of wily defence tactics, but as a "war hero" who got the "red carpet" treatment. Indeed, during Morin's criminal trial, after criminal charges against Sergeant Michalowsky were forever stayed because he was allegedly too sick to testify without risking a heart attack, the entire courtroom was modified to accommodate the perception that there was absolutely no link between the trial of Guy Paul Morin and the criminal charges brought against Michalowsky. The judge did everything he possibly could, through gesture and demeanour, to make it perfectly clear that Guy Paul Morin was the only potential criminal in his courtroom. He even relaxed the practice of wearing judicial robes in court and wore a turtleneck sweater instead. As soon as Michalowsky walked in, he extended him a warm handshake, "something that judges do not do to witnesses."52 The jurors joined the informal judge and defence counsel in a semi-circle in the courtroom to hear Sergeant Michalowsky, a man who had evidently been granted a license to commit perjury without the fear of reproof, give evidence in an atmosphere which was more akin to a group therapy session, than to a serious trial. Clayton Ruby appropriately sighed; "Ah, justice. Elusive isn't it?"

27The Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 7.
28The Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 7.


DEFENCE lawyers wept at the announcement of the guilty verdict. Every single effort to penetrate the prejudice that the prosecution is always right, had failed. Visibly disturbed, Jack Pinkofsky made a brief statement, to the press;

It was on February 7,1986, that Guy Paul Morin was acquitted by a jury of his peers. Today, an innocent man was found guilty. We intend to appeal this verdict and restore the innocence of a person who had absolutely nothing to do with the abduction and killing of Christine Jessop.53

Bearing the burden of the failure to evade a wrongful conviction, Mr. Pinkofsky cried. It is certainly difficult to imagine a man like Pinkofsky, sparing a single tear over the conviction of a ruthless, calculating, perverted, cold-blooded murderer. Mr. Pinkofsky cried because he was well aware of the fact that Guy Paul Morin would have been found innocent, if the deck was not fraudulently stacked against him. Mr. Pinkofsky cried because he was dealt banana republic- style justice in a country which is probably fairer, freer and more democratic than any in the world. Mr. Pinkofsky cried because he was momentarily ashamed to be a Canadian, -not because he had failed do defend a murderer, but because an innocent man was wrongfully convicted. The prosecution celebrated with a beer. Nobody, besides Guy Paul Morin and his lawyers, has ever demonstrated the slightest capacity for genuine compassion. Despite the hate, the suspicion and the paranoia directed towards Morin, he is the only one who has reached out on a human, bitter-free level. Even after he was acquitted of first degree murder charges, instead of sulking over a false accusation he expressed "deep sorrow" over the death of Christine Jessop, and even though he was evidently elated to be free again he said; "For the crisis of the Jessops - the loss of their child -it's sad, and I (feel) very deep sorrow for them."54 And even after the verdict was overturned and he was locked in the throes of a zealous persecution, Morin said; "I don't believe they have any consciences to do what they've done up to this point. I know I can live with myself. I have done no wrong. I will handle this mess as best I can and I will go through it."55 The humanity and the integrity of this convicted murderer, makes most people look and sound like moral degenerates.

53Globe and Mail, 31/7/92.
54Globe and Mail, 8/2/86, p. A 1.
55Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 8.


Despite the repulsion that the act of framing an innocent man arouses, there are no obvious, repulsive villains. The primary motivating goal was to bring a repugnant murderer to justice. But when the effort to prosecute is guided by blind loyalty and zealousness, justice may very well be served in a case where a defendant is guilty, but it is inevitably perverted, in a case where he is not.

If the dynamics of a criminal trial were all textbook inspired, then it would be very simple to blame so and so, for such and such a reason. But human beings are motivated by prejudices, insights and ignorance, not by ideals like "innocent until proven guilty" or "equality before the law." Justice, for better or worse, is often defined by human quirks and tactics. The best defence, for example, in a situation where a shrewd lawyer helps a guilty defendant evade a criminal conviction, does not exactly inspire conf1dence in the just1ce system. But neither are the interests of justice served when an innocent defendant is manipulated by the wily prosecutorial tactic of promoting credibility, not through the merits of a case, but through the blinding claim that well-intentioned authorities cannot all be wrong at the same time. On the contrary, the media itself is forever exposing how often and how easily corruption is tolerated through conspiracies of silence between authorities who do not betray one another, despite the most flagrant, and most vulgar criminal violations imagineable. The deceptive tactics of overzealous prosecutors who exploit the claim that well-intentioned authorities can do no wrong, is an indisputable fiction.

Indeed, the fictions that Prosecutor, Leo McGuigan promoted, do very little beyond exploit ignorance. There is clearly no merit to the practice of placing so-called "small pieces of evidence" under the microscope, to frame an innocent man, and the conviction of Guy Paul Morin is not, by any stretch of the imagination justifiable. Having explored every conceivable angle, every conceivable argument and every conceivable truth, the only way to restore justice in what is clearly a monumental legal fiasco, is to overturn the conviction of Guy Paul Morin or to provide credible proof of guilt. Until then, Canada will be known for it's ability to pervert, rather than to restore justice.





Copyright 2007

Look who's talking

It's not CNN, it's not CNBC, it's not NBC, it's not Fox...

Message Board -Click Here !