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.
Thanks for the message