Justice
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.
Vengeance 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. CREDIBILITY 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.
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.
Perjury 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". 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. Prosecution 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. Corruption 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.
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. 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". 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.
4Globe and Mail, 26/10/83, p.5. Exploitation 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;
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.
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. Distortion 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;
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.
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; 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." 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. Analysis 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.
Evidence 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."
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. 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.
15Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 7.. Bias 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.
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. 19Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 7. Terror 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." 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." 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. Frivolity
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. "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; 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; 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.
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. Suspect 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."
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."
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.
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." 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.
29Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 6. Eccentric 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." 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. 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. Exploitation 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;
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.
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. "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;
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." 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;
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.. 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."
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;
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."
47The Toronto Star, 24/1/86. 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;
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. 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;
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. 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.
27The Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 7. Compassion 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; 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."
53Globe and Mail, 31/7/92. Blame
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.
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.
3The Toronto Star, 30/6/83. p. A-ll
4The Toronto Star, 7/9/82, p. A-10
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.
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.
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.
10The Toronto Star, 16/11/82, p.A 1.
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.
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.
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.
12Globe and Mail, 17/1/86.
13Globe and Mail, 23/1/86.
14Toronto Sun, 17/1/86.
15The Liberal, 30/8/92. p.13
16Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 7.
17Globe and Mail, 22/1/86.
18Globe and Mail, 23/1/86.
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.
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.
20Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 7.
21Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 7.
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.
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.
25Globe and Mail, 6/2/86, p. A 20.
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!
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.
28Globe and Mail, 6/2/86, p. A 20.
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.
38Globe and Mail,
29/1/86.
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.
10The Toronto Star, 16/11/82, p.A 1.
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.
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.
45The Toronto Star, 4/2/86, p.A 7.
46CBC News-A film by Daniel Nearing, August 1992.
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.
48Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p.A 6.
In the tragedy that is the Christine Jessop murder, truth and
justice both took a severe beating.
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.
50Toronto Sun, 31/7/92, pp.
85-6.
28The Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 7.
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.
54Globe and Mail, 8/2/86, p. A 1.
55Globe and Mail, 31/7/92, p. A 8.
