Robert Baltovich's murder conviction may have been overturned but as far as police are concerned the case of who killed Elizabeth Bain is closed.

"There is no factual evidence -- none whatsoever -- that Robert Baltovich did not kill her," Toronto Police homicide Staff-Insp. Brian Raybould said yesterday. "Not a shred."

Raybould and his then-partner Steve Reesor interviewed Baltovich for several hours following the June 1990 disappearance of his 22-year-old girlfriend.

The clean-cut University of Toronto grad was convicted of second-degree murder two years later.

But the road to justice didn't end there, and as far as police are concerned, Bain's killer will never be behind bars.

Through the years, Baltovich's defence team used the conviction of schoolgirl killer Paul Bernardo to contend that it was Bernardo, not Baltovich, who killed Bain.

Baltovich was ultimately released on bail in March 2000 pending an appeal.

But April 22, the day his second trial was set to begin, Baltovich was found not guilty after the prosecution offered no evidence against him. Bain's body still hasn't been found.

"We were all set to proceed with the trial and apparently we had some witness issues after 16, 18 long years that didn't allow us to proceed," Raybould said. "You can call that what you like, but as far as I'm concerned, as I say, there's not one shred of evidence that he did not kill her."

Bain's parents, Ricardo and Julita, weren't surprised the case isn't being reopened. The news has been expected since "the whole case fell apart" in April, Ricardo said yesterday at their Scarborough home.

Baltovich's lawyer couldn't be reached for comment.

Despite Baltovich's conviction, the Bains have always maintained their belief he was involved in their daughter's disappearance.

"He may be free, but he has to walk around with this for the rest of his life," Ricardo said calmly. "We all have to live with the things we do and the choices we make."

---

DIARY OF AN ACQUITTAL

- June 19, 1990: Elizabeth Bain disappears

- June 22, 1990: Bain's blood-stained car discovered

- Nov. 19, 1990: Robert Baltovich arrested, charged with first-degree murder

- Feb. 1992: Baltovich's first trial begins

- March 1992: Jury finds Baltovich guilty of second-degree murder

- May 1992: Baltovich files appeal, raising several issues, including the hypnosis of witnesses

- Oct. 1992: Baltovich denied bail while he waits for his appeal to be heard

- May 1996: Further appeal papers filed suggesting "another individual" killed Bain

- March 2000: New Baltovich appeal documents filed by Lawyers from the Association in the Defence of the Wrongly Convicted. Baltovich released on $500,000 bail

quote:

---

"There is no factual evidence -- none whatsoever -- that Robert Baltovich did not kill her," Toronto Police homicide Staff-Insp. Brian Raybould said yesterday. "Not a shred."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:

I am neither a lawyer, nor an expert in constitutional matters, but is something wrong with that statement? Something just a tad backwards?

---

This is the same stubbornness the police showed against Guy Paul Moran and Donald Marshall.

They don't have any proof against Baltovitch and no other suspects.

Historically speaking, in the case of serial killers there's usually very little in the way of "proof" for a long time. If that's the case here, then it's easier to blame Baltovitch than chase down a phantom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:

I am neither a lawyer, nor an expert in constitutional matters, but is something wrong with that statement? Something just a tad backwards?

---

I don't think so. Baltovich's conviction was overturned, but no court found him "innocent" (as might have happened, say, if they found the evidence was tainted or another culprit was identified, etc.).

And the evidence was very tainted from the original trial. And forensic evidence proved his innocence. Oh and I forgot, he has alibis for the numerous laughable time theories the Crown keep picking out of a hat. And Mr Bain trying to talk the Crown into letting him lie under oath. Original witness statements not pointing the finger at Rob changed with help from the police. And then changing even more 18 yrs later. These so called witnesses will rot in hell if there is such a place I can promise you that.

He's not a Toronto Police spokesman. He's head of homicide and handles the original case.

Brian Raybould is also the police officer, Lawyer James Lockyer tore a strip into 4 yrs ago in front of the Court of Appeals Judges. The Crown took him off their witness list after that. And because he withheld evidence from the defense.

I still havent seen any factual evidence that says any of us in here didnt kill her. Or that Paul Bernardo didnt kill her. And he actually killed her.

Innocent until proven guilty.Rob still hasnt been proven guilty. Your as guilty of this crime as he is.

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: dr anonymous ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I appreciate your feelings and your spirited attitude to this case. The police think Baltovich did it, and they have no other leads. That's why they're not re-opening the investigation. Simple.

As martin notes, there are lots of people who do bad things and are never convicted. That means they are "presumed innocent", but it doesn't mean the police have to keep investigations alive. I'm not saying this is one of those cases, of course.

---

I understand, to some degree, the police obfuscation here, however...

A couple of years ago the police finally went to Bernardo to ask him if he killed Bain.They sent 2 inexperienced officers who treated him like a celebrity.

First off if the police have no doubt its Baltovich they would never have went to Bernardo.

Theyve known for a long time that Rob didnt do it. And all the facts and evidence show this. Unfortunately at his first trial the Judge (who was famous for always siding with the Crown) didnt want to look at the facts. He single handidly forced that jury to convict without 1 single piece of factual evidence.

This cop Raybould is venting himself like this because he knows his time is limited to hurt Rob. He's a pathetic pathetic pos.

And oldgoat you nailed it right on the head. Lets just say that article will be going into a lawyers file for future events. Cops really arent as bright as I thought

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: dr anonymous ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dr anonymous:
Unionist ask yourself this.

A couple of years ago the police finally went to Bernardo to ask him if he killed Bain.They sent 2 inexperienced officers who treated him like a celebrity.

First off if the police have no doubt its Baltovich they would never have went to Bernardo.

Theyve known for a long time that Rob didnt do it. And all the facts and evidence show this. Unfortunately at his first trial the Judge (who was famous for always siding with the Crown) didnt want to look at the facts. He single handidly forced that jury to convict without 1 single piece of factual evidence.

This cop Raybould is venting himself like this because he knows his time is limited to hurt Rob. He's a pathetic pathetic pos.

---

Whether or not Bernardo, or someone else committed the crime isn't the relevant part, to me.

The pertinent problem here is that Baltovitch was *not* convicted so why are the police allowed to close the case or state officially that they are doing so? Isn't that an insult to the family of the victim?

There have been a number of unsolved homicides against females in my neighbourhood and 400 Native women are missing throughout the western provinces. I grew up in an area where several disappearances that were never solved, occurred.

Steven Truscott was a case in point of police incompetence and the political pressure to close politically sensitive cases.

It's not hard to believe that a number of serial killers are operating at any given time crossing several different areas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TVParkdale:
The pertinent problem here is that Baltovitch was *not* convicted so why are the police allowed to close the case or state officially that they are doing so? Isn't that an insult to the family of the victim?

---

ETA: Well, correction, you're right, he was "acquitted", because the judge instructed the jury to find him not guilty. The jury never heard the evidence against him nor the defence.

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

Parkdale. The police closing the case is just a melo-dramatic way of saying 'we think its him even though the evidence says otherwise. Its their lame attempt to save face before possible lawsuits gag them.

Unionist, if the family and police were so convinced why dont they say what the evidence is that convinces them of this to the media. Well they have never and will never be able to answer that because there is none. Honestly none. The boyfriend is always a convenient scapegoat. They called his family liars. Nice

Spector- Brian Raybould did this and Ill say it once again because he is readying for a possible lawsuit and is scared shtless. He's a desperate man acting quite desperately. I dont blame him though. Id like to see him stand up and be a man and apologize and admit he was wrong. But that would take guts. When you have a gun/badge you start to believe you are above everyday people.

Unionist- once again yes he was acquitted. The Crown could have stayed the charges and left it in limbo hoping a magic unicorn would fly into the world with actual evidence. By not presenting any evidence and not staying the charges any good lawyer will tell you that means 1 thing. He's more than not guilty, he's innocent.

The Crown didnt proceed because of forensic evidence that shattered their numerous time frames they kept making up. Their (lol) witnesses were more or less all thrown out because not one of their original statements pointed at Rob in any way. One whacko witness Kaedmon Nancoo actually made up new evidence 1 week before the 2nd trial. He was then thrown out.

Then on top of that Mr Bain tried to talk the 2nd trial Crown into letting him get on the stand and commit perjury. And this guy touts he's a Christian. Talk about good marketing for the church.

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: dr anonymous ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dr anonymous:

Parkdale. The police closing the case is just a melo-dramatic way of saying 'we know its him even though the evidence says otherwise. Its their lame attempt to save face before possible lawsuits gag them.

---

You may have a point about possible lawsuits with gag orders. I hadn't considered that point of view, yet.

But, in the case of Stephen Truscott and Guy Paul Morin and others, professional people removed from the immediate circumstance knew better, and were willing enough to keep innocent people behind bars.

And allow child killers to walk amoungst us unfettered in the process, which has certainly happened in the Truscott case, and the Guy Paul Morin case.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dr anonymous:
Unionist. The Court of Appeals ordered a new trial because they are not in the position to judge so-called evidence. If they were allowed to do that I have no doubt they would acquitted him on the spot.

---

Well, I think that's not quite accurate. Here's what the Court of Appeal said:

quote:

---

After consideration of the evidence at trial and the enhanced record on appeal, the Court declined to grant Baltovich an acquittal. The Court was not persuaded that an acquittal was appropriate given that there is evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict. The Court further concluded that this was not one of those "clearest of cases" in which a stay would be warranted. Consequently, the Court concluded that the proper disposition was to order a new trial.

---

I actually hope the province doesnt settle because the police/crown and members of the Bain family will be dragged through the mud and exposed. As a citizen I would love to see that. But alas the province cant afford that humiliation and then they will end up losing the suit also.

Tommy you answered unionists question for me. 100% correct. They would be slapping the judge/jury/system in the face by overturning it. And they easily would have if poitics werent involved

Unionist-appeals courts have that option but never use it unless its an outright no other option case. They worded it like that to protect their own bottomline

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: dr anonymous ]

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: dr anonymous ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
It's legal talk for "we can't overturn a jury conviction, so we'll give it to another jury".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TVParkdale:

This is the same stubbornness the police showed against Guy Paul Moran and Donald Marshall.

---

And now a judge says Marshall's mother was partly to blame for the justice system failing her son so badly. Blame the vic before admitting they don't know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

And now a judge says Marshall's mother was partly to blame for the justice system failing her son so badly. Blame the vic before admitting they don't know.

My brother was involved in a $50 dollar fender bender - brushed another car belonging to a pillar of the community during his college days. The cop came and questioned him like two years later about a paint smudge on his VW and pertaining to the same unsolved mystery. They'll get where water can go for all the connected people.

---

Of course, it's ALWAYS the mother's fault--where have you been, good sir?

Indeed, even in cases where an appellate panel may be convinced that an appellant is innocent, absent an obvious error in law, evidence of a miscarriage of justice such as fresh evidence, or a complete and utter discrediting of the Crown's case, nothing can be done.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TVParkdale:
I really think, in the interests of true justice [not necessarily in this particular case] that our courts need to add the Scottish Court Finding of:

"Not Proven"

---

I would expect because we humans are imperfect that courts would make honest human mistakes from time to time, and wrongfull convictions would happen.

But in these cases, and in the cases of fiddled prosecutions and charges never laid, there is real prosecutorial malfeasance, tampering with witnesses by police, and, in the recent example in the Smith inquiry, perjury that knowingly lead to innocent citizens being deprived of liberty-- all with no criminal charges being laid.

We already have a system in place for these kinds of things. It's called the justice system.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Opinionation:
A 'gag' order is, in effect, an agreement ...

---

I thought that was called a confidential agreement. I thought a "gag order" was an order by a tribunal, such as in youth or security cases.

I also wasn't aware that "most" settlements of wrongful conviction suits require the victim to agree that the perp did nothing wrong. Did Maher Arar and David Milgaard agree to that?

[ 25 October 2008: Message edited by: dr anonymous ]

When I refer to a 'gag' order in respect to a civil settlement, I am using it in the pejorative sense; the plaintiff, in exchange for entering into a settelment, agrees to keep any terms of the agreement confidential.

Such agreements are becoming more and more common though not universal. Peter Frumusa, a Niagara Falls man, was required to abide by such an agreement in respect to his wrongful conviction and malicious prosecution suit. The National Post wrote:

I share Mr. Paine's frustration - inquiries are time-consuming, labour-intensive and incredibly expensive; however, a tribunal modelled after the CCRC in the UK would obviate the need for most of these, because they would identify wrongul convictions before they get to the inquiry stage.

But yes, jail would be a most deserving end. Until then, it's looks like the only means of redress is to hit them in the wallet, with the taxpayer shouldering the burden.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I strongly disagree. Such a move would seriously undermine the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of the justice system that is already under siege.

---

I'd agree the courts are in deep trouble.

However:

If the accused is found innocent that is the end of it.

In "Not Proven" the court is open to *new* evidence and it is publicly obvious that the prosecutor, although having a legal reason to bring the case, does not have enough evidence for a conviction.

We are stuck in a system where a jury who may believe the possibility of someone's guilt, will convict without sufficient evidence rather than let someone they consider may be dangerous, to go free.

However, when we see one inquiry after another, addressing the same general issues, they are just a waste of time and money. For the taxpayer.

Lucrative for a few others, though, I notice.

And I think the taxpayer quite deserves to be on the hook for wrongfull convictions and the many other travesties of justice that seem to be pouring from Ontario Courts. They happen, ultimately, because we are asleep at the switch, and are not doing what an informed citizenry in a democracy should be doing.

All that aside though, perjury is a crime. Telling witnesses to adjust their testimony is a crime. Withholding exculpatory evidence is a crime.

What we should be telling our M.P.P.'s and Chris Bentley, the Attorney General, is that they are, through their pointed inaction, putting a certain class of people above the law, and that they have turned our courts into a weapon against the working class, the poor and visible minorities.

Inquiries are a great idea but they should be done by the tax payers not by the gov't. 99% of the time cops dont go to jail for their crimes. Judges and Crowns never go to jail or are fined. And the people that put Baltovich and Morin through hell should have all spent alot of time in jail.

Growing up you are always taught to respect the police. Your told the police are good and honest. The problem is as you get older and wiser you start to realize that that was a pipedream. Think about all the crimes cops get away with that we arent even told of or aware of. Are there good cops, of course there are.

I think what upsets me about this Brian Raybould article is the 'why did he say it and why now?'

Baltovich has been proven innocent. Really just look at the transcripts from the first trial and transcripts over the last 9 yrs.

Judge Marc Rosenberg would not have let Rob out back in 2000 if he wasnt 100% sure of his innocence. He even said that based on the evidence there is a very possible liklihood that an innocent man has been convicted. He let Rob out because he saw 3 witnesses who all changed their stories to what the cops needed to hear. Its scary to think cops want witnesses to lie just to get a conviction. Scarier that witnesses let it happen. Quite scary

Yet this Raybould is allowed to lie and more or less call Rob a murderer once again. Its just wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
As for the court being open to "new evidence" after the verdict, you are presumably saying that after a verdict of "not proven" the prosecution could put the accused on trial again for the same charge. This violates the rule against double jeopardy. It allows the Crown to harrass an accused by successive trials on the same charge until they get a conviction.

---

I think, M. Spector, that this thread is about the cop who said that no fact has emerged to show Baltovich didn't do the deed. I actually see nothing wrong with that statement (other than maybe the phrasing) given the context - which is appararently a question as to whether they will not reopen an 18-year-old investigation, when they think they already know what happened and have no new information.

It's really important to distinguish between "innocence", in a criminal sense, and whether the guy did it or not.

Say I'm found not guilty after a murder trial - the evidence seems overwhelming, but it's all thrown out because it was obtained by an unlawful search. Say that after the trial, I proudly announce that I killed the victim and got away with it. The "double jeopardy" principle properly protects me from a second criminal trial (although there may of course be civil actions). But does it protect me from people saying publicly that I am a killer?

I would think that if Baltovich, or his friends, or anyone else, doesn't like Raybould's statements or the actions of the police, they have a right to take civil or other action.

But please let's not conclude from the Court of Appeal, and from the Crown's decision not to prosecute, that Baltovich didn't kill Bains. A jury convicted him once, and the Court of Appeal said there was enough evidence to convict by a properly instructed jury. If that leaves a shadow over Baltovich's head, all we can say is that life's like that.

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

We dont have double jeopardy in Canada. Guy Paul Morin can attest to that.

Unionist quote-
But please let's not conclude from the Court of Appeal, and from the Crown's decision not to prosecute, that Baltovich didn't kill Bains.

If you want to think he did it or could have done it based on zero factual evidence thats your right. He was convicted at his first trial because of a corrupt judge/crown who forced a jury to convict. It happens alot more than you realize. Why do you think numerous Crown attorneys said no to this case many years ago?

Its quite entertaining that you say lets not assume he's innocent based on the facts. Well please tell me what evidence says he killed her because Ive never seen 1 thing other than corrupt cops/crown/judge. Why they did this to him Im sure we'll never know. Ask Raybould what evidence there is

quote:

---

Originally posted by dr anonymous:

He's a factually innocent man yet you dont seem to want to accept it. Im confused

---

Well, let me quote from the Court of Appeal once again and you explain it to me (because I know nothing about the facts of the case and I'm not particularly interested in trying him again over the internet):

quote:

---

The Court was not persuaded that an acquittal was appropriate given that there is evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict. The Court further concluded that this was not one of those "clearest of cases" in which a stay would be warranted. Consequently, the Court concluded that the proper disposition was to order a new trial.

---

Please explain how that ruling makes Baltovich "factually innocent", in your words. I don't understand.

ETA: For clarity, here's what I'm asking you to comment on:

quote:

---

... there is evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict ...

---

True, or false? And if it's false, why accept their take on the judge's instructions, and why accept their setting aside of the guilty verdict?

I'm confused.

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I said presumption, not determination. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. By definition, if you are "not proven" guilty, you are innocent. There is no room for a jury to say the Crown hasn't proven your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but we don't like you so we are going to leave you with a cloud of suspicion hanging over your head.

As for the court being open to "new evidence" after the verdict, you are presumably saying that after a verdict of "not proven" the prosecution could put the accused on trial again for the same charge. This violates the rule against double jeopardy. It allows the Crown to harrass an accused by successive trials on the same charge until they get a conviction.

---

There is no "double jeopardy" law in Canada.

One of the problems with that law in the USA is when there is a mistrial for technical reasons, the accused is free and the charges cannot be reinstated. This has caused considerable hardship around felons who have committed further heinous crimes and yet their previous crimes cannot be added to the docket.

Now, I would agree that limitations on such a situation should be enacted to prevent the sort of harassment you are speaking of.

"Gating" is the already simplified version of this kind of harassment. It's easier and cheaper.

Do I trust the state without clear legal guidance in this? Absolutely not.

One of the struggles not addressed is the extreme racism of the court system. Scott Wortley, criminologist at UofT was very clear in his findings about how the prosecutors and police collude to get "guilty" verdicts when the outcome is unsure and the accused, a minority person.

You are concerned about trial outcomes. I am more concerned earlier in the game when manipulation of the system is common, easy and extremely effective.

Most cases will never see the light of a trial and media attention. The majority of cases will be determined in the shadows of the plea bargaining process.

High profile cases tend to take away from the fundamental flaws presently enacted daily within the court system.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dr anonymous:

I think what upsets me about this Brian Raybould article is the 'why did he say it and why now?'

---

For similar reasons that the courts cut a deal with Shawn Brandt.

To keep the Fantino tapes OUT of court because it would mean a public record [not just media play] of Fantino's illegal threats and then it would be a public embarrassment if he was NOT charged.

Raybould would say it NOW because he's publicly setting himself up as the victim so he will not be nailed for suborning perjury.

The famous quote ... there is evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict ... remember they said this after they called for a new trial. The 1st trial judge was slammed hard. They said this line because he had already been convicted so on the surface it could reasonably happen again. They dont evaluate this trials sort of evidence otherwise they would be insulting the process. And dont forget, 4 yrs ago they didnt have the forensic evidence factually showing his innocence. They also didnt have the right to eliminate 3 hypnotized(changed original statements)(lo) key witnesses. These witnesses were thrown out before the 2nd trial. The police still dont have any evidence she was killed or when. Forensics destroyed their soap opera theories. And the 2nd trial would have seen the evidence the cops/crown conveniently forgot to show the defense.

The Court of Appeals didnt need to say that famous quote but they did so to save face and because they didnt have what I wrote above.

And once again the 2nd trial Crown if he thought Rob was guilty would have stayed the charges instead of entering no evidence. Now that is factual evidence.

How in hell did he ever get arrested let alone convicted and have 18 yrs of his life stolen from him.

Hypnotized witnesses who all 3 changed their original and 2nd statements with the help of cops and Robs pix in the paper/tv.

Cops/Crown not giving pertenant evidence to the defense. Aka hiding it

Why did 1st trial Judge John O Driscoll have what appears to be hatred against Rob. I say the cops have a large say in that.

How was all of this allowed to happen in Canada? 3rd world country I could understand but Canada. Whoaa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dr anonymous:
The question I ask myself pretty well everyday is this.

How in hell did he ever get arrested let alone convicted and have 18 yrs of his life stolen from him.

Hypnotized witnesses who all 3 changed their original and 2nd statements with the help of cops and Robs pix in the paper/tv.

Cops/Crown not giving pertenant evidence to the defense. Aka hiding it

Why did 1st trial Judge John O Driscoll have what appears to be hatred against Rob. I say the cops have a large say in that.

How was all of this allowed to happen in Canada? 3rd world country I could understand but Canada. Whoaa.

And all they are going to do is pay him off so he has to shut his mouth and not expose them publicly. Great system

---

No system is perfect. And that's far from excusing this one.

What needs to happen [and won't] is looking at what errors were made, how to not make them again and how to make as much restitution as possible for this one.

Systemic victims rarely want money, although they *need* money for the time/ability that these abuses take away from them.

What they *want* generally speaking, is a sense of justice. Restitution. Public apologies. Changes so it won't happen again. In this case, fire the cop--he's a crook.

I don't know what to tell you, friend. Nothing can make this right. A few things might make it "better"...

quote:

---

Great system

---

It is, actually. For a select few.

In the same week the Smith Inquiry published it's findings, the Ontario Ombudsman published it's findings on the investigation into the SIU.

Think about that. Enough problems happend in Police Investigations that the Province set up a separate board, the SIU, to investigate police. And then, this board is itself found in need of investigation.

Wrongfull convictions, conveniently botched prosecutions, police corruption, it all paints a picture when you put it all together.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

It is, actually. For a select few.

In the same week the Smith Inquiry published it's findings, the Ontario Ombudsman published it's findings on the investigation into the SIU.

Think about that. Enough problems happend in Police Investigations that the Province set up a separate board, the SIU, to investigate police. And then, this board is itself found in need of investigation.

Wrongfull convictions, conveniently botched prosecutions, police corruption, it all paints a picture when you put it all together.

If we can't just fire them all, maybe we should just purge the ring leaders.

---

Well for starters, whistle-blowing needs to be rewarded.

We need a citizen's commission.

Then take out at least half of the worst of the brass--Fantino first, before he blows this province into civil war in Caledon. His blatant racism has exploded that community into fragments.

Take out half the brass and give the other cops someone to TELL safely when another cop is dirty.

Start serious prosecutions for police that are caught wrongdoing. Stop allowing free sex as a way to catch sex trade workers as admissible evidence and other such abominations against the public good. If it's not legal for a citizen, how can a cop be exempt in order to "make the case"?

Clean up the OPP, top to bottom.

Police cannot police themselves. The notion is simply ludicrous. That is why they have unions, and unions have lawyers.

How can we justify in a democracy, what is essentially a military arm, not having accountableness to the public it claims to serve?

Police policing themselves is like Maple Leaf claiming they will set their own standards so there won't be tainted meat. And they rely on profit to get paid.

We saw how that turned out...

Think about the type of people that get into Gov't jobs and why .

People that want to be cops are in 2 classes. 1)the ones that actaully give a sht and want to help clean things up 2)people that really dont have alot of education and yearn for the power a gun/badge gives.

Same with people who become servants of the Gov't.1) there are many Im sure who want to contribute to making the country better 2) with out a doubt there are lots who just want the cushiness and security that comes with a Gov't job. And the power that comes with many of those Gov't positions. You dont think kids of guys like Chris Bentley or Brian Mulroney were ever heard to say 'hey do you know who my dad is?'. And you dont think these glorified monkeys in these positions feel that way. Ya nice try.

Lots of cops are very corrupt. SIU is proof of that. Will anything be done. Ya sure.

And we just have to sit by and twittle our thumbs and do nothing about it. Yeah I led a meaningful life doing nothing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I think, M. Spector, that this thread is about the cop who said that no fact has emerged to show Baltovich didn't do the deed. I actually see nothing wrong with that statement (other than maybe the phrasing) given the context...

---

It's not surprsing that no other new facts have fallen into the police's laps, since they stopped investigating the case once they thought they had their man.

quote:

---

It's really important to distinguish between "innocence", in a criminal sense, and whether the guy did it or not.

---

quote:

---

Say I'm found not guilty after a murder trial - the evidence seems overwhelming, but it's all thrown out because it was obtained by an unlawful search. Say that after the trial, I proudly announce that I killed the victim and got away with it. The "double jeopardy" principle properly protects me from a second criminal trial (although there may of course be civil actions). But does it protect me from people saying publicly that I am a killer?

---

But this is not the kind of hypothetical case you referred to where it would be "clear" that Baltovich was guilty but he got off because of an unlawful search, or other denial of his rights, even though everyone "knew" he was guilty. The cops don't "know" Baltovich killed Bains any more than they "know" that Paul Bernardo didn't. This is a case where the Crown knew it couldn't meet the burden of proof. That's the fault of the cops who investigated, but they want to wash their hands of responsibility.

I was responding to a suggestion that our courts should have the option to cast a cloud of suspicion over Baltovich by neither convicting nor acquitting him, but giving some intermediate verdict like "not proven". I was arguing in favour of the more binary approach we have at present.

quote:

---

I would think that if Baltovich, or his friends, or anyone else, doesn't like Raybould's statements or the actions of the police, they have a right to take civil or other action.

---

quote:

---

But please let's not conclude from the Court of Appeal, and from the Crown's decision not to prosecute, that Baltovich didn't kill Bains. A jury convicted him once, and the Court of Appeal said there was enough evidence to convict by a properly instructed jury. If that leaves a shadow over Baltovich's head, all we can say is that life's like that.

---

The fact that the Crown did not call any evidence at the second trial is sufficient to conclude that Baltovich deserved to be acquitted. Whether or not he actually killed Bains is now a matter of conjecture, but in law he has been properly acquitted.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dr anonymous:
Very well put guys couldnt agree more.

Lots of cops are very corrupt. SIU is proof of that. Will anything be done. Ya sure.

And we just have to sit by and twittle our thumbs and do nothing about it. Yeah I led a meaningful life doing nothing.

The Dallas Cowboys suck

---

Well, it's priorities, I guess.

You can only take on so many fights. I would suggest it's possible, with enough pressure to get the SIU replaced with a citizen's commission.

Especially now, in the days of video where nasty cops wind up on a bystander's phone camera with their dirty deeds splattered all over a million YouTube views.

Enough of that and the pressure to change will become insurmountable.

Okay, that's my one optimistic point for the day.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TVParkdale:
There is no "double jeopardy" law in Canada.

---

For example, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which says in Section 11 (h):

quote:

---

Any person charged with an offence has the right... if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
There are also common-law principles that are recognized as prohibiting double jeopardy.

---

Guy Paul Morin was tried a second time when he was acquitted the first time. He's not the only case, either.

All it takes is for the Attorney General to reverse the original decision.

"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes provisions such as section 11(h) prohibiting double jeopardy. But often this prohibition applies only after the trial is finally concluded. In contrast to the laws of the United States, Canadian law allows the prosecution to appeal from an acquittal. If the acquittal is thrown out, the new trial is not considered to be double jeopardy because the first trial and its judgment would have been annulled.In rare circumstances, a court of appeal might also [B] substitute a conviction[B/] for an acquittal. This is not considered to be double jeopardy either - in this case the appeal and subsequent conviction are deemed to be a continuation of the original trial.

For an appeal from an acquittal to be successful, the Supreme Court of Canada requires that the Crown show an error in law was made during the trial and that the error contributed to the verdict."--Wikipedia

Okay, I'll concede it is not called "double jeopardy" as the American courts would define it.

It is still being tried [or convicted after acquittal] twice for the same offense.

In practice the results, for Guy Paul Morin and others is precisely the same.

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: TVParkdale ]

quote:

---

"There is no factual evidence -- none whatsoever -- that Robert Baltovich did not kill her," Toronto Police homicide Staff-Insp. Brian Raybould said yesterday. "Not a shred."

---

There is nothing in this statement, taken alone, that negates the presumption of innocence - nor did Raybould say that "Baltovich is guilty". Here is what the Court of Appeal said, at paragraph 162 of their decision:

quote:

---

The test for ordering an acquittal based on fresh evidence is high; the evidence must be "clearly decisive" of innocence. See R. v. Stolar, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 480. For the purposes of deciding this question, we have assumed that all of the fresh evidence is admissible. Even on that basis, we are of the view that the fresh evidence, whether considered on an item-by-item basis or in its totality, is not "clearly decisive" of the appellant's innocence. Thus, an acquittal is not warranted.

---

[emphasis added]

In Canada, unlike in the United States, an acquittal can be appealed and a previously acquitted defendant can be tried again; once Crown appeals has been exhausted and/or a period of Crown stay has elapsed, it's all over. As for subsequent civil proceedings, it rarely if ever happens in Canada.

We've outlined the factual evidence that proves beyond any doubt that Baltovich couldnt have killed her unless he has a twin brother that is.

Im trying to understand your reasoning but I just cant seem to grasp it.

Theres still no factual evidence that anybody killed her yet you think its alright for a homicide cop (who withheld evidence) to attempt to worsen a mans life with lies and libelous statements.

Wow

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: dr anonymous ]

That's the same thing the Court of Appeal said, isn't it?

Raybould may be right or wrong, but I don't get the outrage.

In some cases, it is proven that "he didn't do it" (as for example with DNA evidence, or someone else confesses, whatever). Raybould is saying that hasn't happened in this case.

To say that Raybould is "lying" and making "libelous statements" seems inaccurate to me. He's expressing his opinion as a police investigator about the state of the evidence. And he hasn't said Baltovich is guilty or that Baltovich killed someone. That could well be libelous. He said what he said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dr anonymous:

Theres still no factual evidence that anybody killed her yet you think its alright for a homicide cop (who withheld evidence) to attempt to worsen a mans life with lies and libelous statements.

Wow

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: dr anonymous ]

---

I'm finding this rather interesting from the perspective that CanWest can SLAPP activists with libel for doing an obvious parody of a newspaper yet a police officer can announce in the media that a "suspect" that has been cleared by the courts is "guilty" and get away with it as "opinion" when it is clearly libelous.

My problem with it is that an officer of the law is *using his position* to make this pronouncement without a court's conviction to back it up.

I fail to understand why this did not result in disciplinary action for using his professional standing to promote libelous statements.

It also troubles me since it is NOT the job of the police to pronounce guilt or innocence, or to speculate on such, it is their job to investigate and detain possible suspects. Period.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TVParkdale:
... a police officer can announce in the media that a "suspect" that has been cleared by the courts is "guilty" and get away with it ...

---

I hate to be repetitious - but:

1. Raybould never said Baltovich was "guilty" or that "Baltovich killed her" - at least not that I can find in the media.

The problem is, there is "no factual evidence" that hundreds of thousands of other individuals in the GTA, and beyond, "didn't kill her", including Paul Bernardo. Of note, a judge with the Superior Court of Ontario, hearing a fresh evidence application brought by the defence, found that there was factual evidence that he did.

And, more importantly, there is no factual evidence that Robert Baltovich did commit the crime; otherwise, the Crown would not have elected to call "no evidence".

But please let's not conclude from the Court of Appeal, and from the Crown's decision not to prosecute, that Baltovich didn't kill Bains. A jury convicted him once, and the Court of Appeal said there was enough evidence to convict by a properly instructed jury. If that leaves a shadow over Baltovich's head, all we can say is that life's like that.

I think we should be careful when drawing any conclusions from the Court of Appeal decision. That said, legally speaking the jury did NOT convict him; the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and by doing so they rendered his conviction null and void.

Lastly, when examining the following statement, taken from the Court of Appeal's 2004 decision:

...we are satisfied that there is evidence upon which a properly instructed jury, acting judicially, could reasonably convict.

we must be mindful that it could mean several things. For one, 'could' does not mean should. As well, much of the "evidence" that such a jury might rely upon was deemed either inadmissible or unreliable prior to Baltovich's trial. In particular, the Court spent much time discussing hypnosis, deemed it admissible, and it factored heavily in the decision not to acquit. In 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada overruled the court and prohibited the use of hypnosis, deeming it manifestly unreliable. Thus, the appeal court did not have the full record.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TVParkdale:

It also troubles me since it is NOT the job of the police to pronounce guilt or innocence, or to speculate on such, it is their job to investigate and detain possible suspects. Period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Opinionation:
In the final analysis, the Crown was in the best position to evaluate their case, better than the police, better than the Court of Appeal, and better than public. They decided that there wasn't one. End of story.

---

Ok. You read what Raybould is reported to have said.

1. Do you find it was "lies" or "libel", as has been suggested here?

2. When a reporter asks: "Now that Baltovich has been cleared, why don't you reopen the investigation?" - what is wrong with Raybould responding that he has seen no evidence to counter the conclusion the police reached before? Or should he just be more circumspect and say: "I'm sorry, I'm not at liberty to answer, it's none of your business?"

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Ok. You read what Raybould is reported to have said.

1. Do you find it was "lies" or "libel", as has been suggested here?

2. When a reporter asks: "Now that Baltovich has been cleared, why don't you reopen the investigation?" - what is wrong with Raybould responding that he has seen no evidence to counter the conclusion the police reached before? Or should he just be more circumspect and say: "I'm sorry, I'm not at liberty to answer, it's none of your business?"

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

---

In the real world, when one is not in a viable position to speak to the media, most professionals usually respond,

The case was never closed so that question would not be asked.

I think its quite obvious Raybould went to them. The media would have no reason to go to him other than to rub salt in his wound. And this article did nothing but make him look like a whiny little kid wanting candy at the store. Thank you Toronto Sun and Brian Raybould

If you cant see that all Raybould was trying to do was cause sht for Baltovich then so be it. If you dont understand libel (direct or indirect) then so be it.

You seem to really be going at Baltovich on this and you also are the only one that doesnt seem to see the wrong in all of this.

Everybody has a right to their opinion.

I respect that you have yours. Your last name doesnt start with a b or an r does it. Just a curious observation.

Im quite sure this will not be the last we hear of this. Im sure a great lawyer is foaming at the mouth somehwere.

When a reporter asks: "Now that Baltovich has been cleared, why don't you reopen the investigation?" - what is wrong with Raybould responding that he has seen no evidence to counter the conclusion the police reached before? Or should he just be more circumspect and say: "I'm sorry, I'm not at liberty to answer, it's none of your business?"

What is wrong is he would be lying and committing libel

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: dr anonymous ]

For one, as 'TVParkdale' correctly asserted, it is not the place of the police to come to any conclusions; their role is to gather evidence and present it to the Crown at which time a decision is made as to whether it is sufficient to merit a prosecution. The Crown, upon reflection and with the assistance of the court evaluated the evidence and deemed it lacking in sufficiency.

The goal of any criminal investigation is NOT to determine whether a suspect can prove that they didn't commit a crime; the goal is to find evidence suggesting that they did; until such time as a finding of guilty has been entered in a court of law, the investigation should continue.

As well, I sense some confusion as to what Brian Raybould's duties actually are. The police are civil servants; they work for us, not for themselves. It is in the public interest that Elizabeth Bains' killer be found; this is reason enough to continue the investigation.

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: Opinionation ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Opinionation:
What is wrong with Raybould responding that he has seen no evidence to counter the conclusion the police reached before?

For one, as 'unionist' correctly asserted, it is not the place of the police to come to any conclusions; their role is to gather evidence and present it to the Crown at which time a decision is made as to whether it is sufficient to merit a prosecution. The Crown, upon reflection and with the assistance of the court evaluated the evidence and deemed it lacking in sufficiency.

The goal of any criminal investigation is NOT to determine whether a suspect can prove that they didn't commit a crime; the goal is to find evidence suggesting that they did; until such time as a finding of guilty has been entered in a court of law, the investigation should continue.

As well, I sense some confusion as to what Brian Raybould's duties actually are. The police are civil servants; they work for us, not for themselves. It is in the public interest that Elizabeth Bains' killer be found; this is reason enough to continue the investigation.

---

Exactly my point from before.

Raybould has publicly stated that he has made up his mind about who killed Bain.

It is NOT his job to determine that outcome.

His job is to gather the evidence. If he makes assumptions he is in dereliction of duty. Not finding useful evidence is a possibility.

However, that does NOT give him the right to close the case or shoot his mouth off to the media because he personally believes he's found the suspect.

All too often in homicides, that is exactly why they don't get solved. Or why people go to prison for crimes they did not commit.

Tomorrow might bring a new scientific technique. Someone may come forward. There may be evidence overlooked because Baltovitch was the obvious suspect.

You are correct, it would not; however, such post-acquittal comments by public officials are considered relevant in determining the quantum a plaintiff might receive in a civil settlement. They are damaging in the extreme and as such the harm they cause to someone's reputation does enter into the calculation.

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: Opinionation ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Opinionation:
But based on what I have read about Raybould's statements, I don't actually think such a suit would be successful.

You are correct, it would not; however, such post-acquittal comments by public officials are considered relevant in determining the quantum a plaintiff might receive in a civil settlement. They are damaging in the extreme and as such the harm they cause to someone's reputation does enter into the calculation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
My point is that if there's not even enough credible evidence for the Crown to proceed with charges against Baltovich (let alone convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt) where do the cops get off declaring his guilt or innocence based on some other, lesser standard of proof that wouldn't hold up in court?

---

My problem is that I simply don't see where the cops did that.

I don't know why the Crown didn't proceed - do you? Is it conceivable that it's harder to make a case beyond a reasonable doubt, based on witness's memories, 18 years after the event?

You've had everyone of your questions answered yet you keep asking them. If you dont understand the cop going to the Sun and saying these things is borderline libelous then dont. But stop bugging people with the same questions.

This case has been unofficially closed for years. Rayboulds self pride is more important then finding the real killer. They are entitled to believe anything they want, just like you and I. Im having a very hard time thinking you dont get what they did is very wrong. I think you are just playing stupid games or you havent graduated high school yet. Nothing personal by that but man if you aint f'n with us you need to put eh joint down,.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
My real question for you is this: Do you believe the police are under some obligation to keep their investigation alive? Or are they entitled to believe that Baltovich did the deed, whether the Crown thinks it can get a conviction or not?

---

If the cops aren't going to get the necessary evidence, who will? Is it sufficient for the cops to say we believe he's guilty, even though we can't prove it, because he can't prove he's innocent? I don't think so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I read the article. It seems to me the media asked Raybould whether the investigation was still open, or would be re-opened. He said no. When asked why not, he said they had evidence ready to proceed to trial, but the trial didn't go ahead because of some witness issues. When the media kept pushing about reopening the investigation, he said there was no factual evidence that "Baltovich didn't kill her".

That's the same thing the Court of Appeal said, isn't it?

---

The Court of Appeal's decision did not rest on a finding that there was no evidence of B's innocence. The "absence of evidence of innocence" is irrelevant in a criminal trial because the burden of proof is on the Crown prosecutor to prove guilt, not on the defence to prove innocence.

They never had enough credible evidence to get this to court. Im ashamed at our province for putting him through this. Get your hands on public transcripts from City Hall or read the book 'no claim to mercy' by derek finkle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Not at all.

The Court of Appeal's decision did not rest on a finding that there was no evidence of B's innocence. The "absence of evidence of innocence" is irrelevant in a criminal trial because the burden of proof is on the Crown prosecutor to prove guilt, not on the defence to prove innocence.

The question before the C.A. was very different from the question before the jury in the original trial. The jury had to decide whether the Crown had proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It was not the C.A.'s job to substitute its own opinion for that of the jury. Having decided that the conviction could not legally stand because of errors made by the trial judge, the C.A. then had to decide whether the trial transcript disclosed sufficient evidence, which if believed by the jury, could reasonably support a guilty verdict, or whether, on the other hand, there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury, properly instructed by the trial judge, to reach a guilty verdict. If the former, there would have to be a new trial; if the latter, a new trial would be pointless and a not guilty verdict would be entered by the C.A. The fact that the C.A. decided the former does not mean that they thought Baltovich was guilty or that there was no evidence that he was innocent. All they said was that a new jury would have to decide whether B. was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not, based on its own assessment of all the evidence adduced in court.

---

Uhm, hi...

I *think* I understood that. However, next time could you shorten the sentences a bit for clarity?

Thanks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dr anonymous:
They do have an obligation but they have badges and guns so they are above the law. Didnt you know that. Did you ever see the Andy Griffith episode when Barney was temp sheriff. His head turned in to a balloon. They sleep with the Crown who sleeps with the Judges. Great huh

They never had enough credible evidence to get this to court. Im ashamed at our province for putting him through this. Get your hands on public transcripts from City Hall or read the book 'no claim to mercy' by derek finkle.

You'll be just as ashamed and shocked as I am. F'd up stuff

---

Let's not sidetrack here.

I think we are *all* agreed here, [except for unionist] that this case should remain open and the cop should shut up and do his job.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
The Court of Appeal's decision did not rest on a finding that there was no evidence of B's innocence. The "absence of evidence of innocence" is irrelevant in a criminal trial because the burden of proof is on the Crown prosecutor to prove guilt, not on the defence to prove innocence.

---

We're talking about two different things. Baltovich's lawyer filed "fresh evidence" and moved for acquittal on that basis. The Court could have acquitted had it found that the evidence was "clearly decisive of innocence". It did not so find, and it rejected the plea for acquittal.

So yes, in that limited context, the burden of proof was definitely on the defence to "prove innocence", and that burden was not met.

You are focusing on one isolated aspect of the appeal. The C.A. did not find the additional evidence adduced by the defence on appeal met the very high test of being "clearly decisive" of innocence. That doesn't mean there was "no evidence" of innocence, as the cops are claiming.

The court ordered a new trial rather than simply setting aside the guilty verdict and staying further proceedings, or entering a not guilty verdict on the basis of the new evidence. I don't know how that decision can be taken as any kind of affirmation of Baltovich's guilt or innocence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

So quoting the Court of Appeal in support of the cops' belief that Baltovich actually killed Bain makes no sense to me at all.

---

All right, go back to the beginning of the thread. Oldgoat said in the very second post:

quote:

---

I am neither a lawyer, nor an expert in constitutional matters, but is something wrong with that statement? Something just a tad backwards?

---

I quoted the Court of Appeal to show that there are, indeed, real-life contexts where factual evidence of innocence are indeed important. The Court found that there wasn't enough to acquit, and the police apparently think there isn't enough to go looking for a different killer.

The settlement process begins once - and if - the suit is certified. Customarily, a hearing will take place to determine whether the suit has merit; then and only then will a settlement be reached. There are some situations where a negotiation will take place absent a civil suit - as in Truscott - but with respect to civil suits, settlements are usually reached as a means of avoiding a protracted llitigation, which both parties customarily seek to avoid.

And no plaintiff is going to receive extra compensation in an out-of-court settlement for damages that he wouldn't be awarded anyway if the case went to trial.

The damages assist in determining the size of the settlement.

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: Opinionation ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
But this entire thread is about the police considering the investigation closed, and that this constitutes some sort of crime against Baltovich. Sorry, I'm not there.

---

You are mixing up apples and oranges. Whether for the sake of obsfucation or not, I can't tell.

The points:

1) The police are under obligation to keep the case open [not necessarily active] because they have not provided enough proof to the crown to gain a conviction, thus clearing the case.

2) Without that conviction, the police are NOT in a position to be announcing to the media that they will close the case because they believe someone is guilty. That is overstepping the boundaries of their position.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I don't know why the Crown didn't proceed - do you? Is it conceivable that it's harder to make a case beyond a reasonable doubt, based on witness's memories, 18 years after the event?

---

It's conceivable, but they had three years from the time the court quashed the conviction and the day they pulled the case to make that decision; it is odd that they would have waited until the eleventh hour given that their memories wouldn't have degraded any more between 2004 and 2008.

Not to sound too critical, but I think you may have fallen into Raybould's trap. His vague suggestion that "16, 18 long years" factored into the Crown's decision might lead one to that conclusion - it's a reasonable one - but there are supplementary reports, witness statements and trial transcripts available - all you really have to do is present them to the witness, ask them if they told the truth and there you have it. Indeed, were witness memories an issue, the Court of Appeal would have commented on it they way they did in Truscott, where the decision to enter an acquittal was predicated on the length of time since the original trial.

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: Opinionation ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TVParkdale:
Without that conviction, the police are NOT in a position to be announcing to the media that they will close the case because they believe someone is guilty.

---

Well, they didn't say that they believe someone is guilty - did they? Unless I missed it.

As far as keeping the file open, I have no idea how long police do that. Do you?

Actually, the whole story is kind of weird. All I see is what is quoted above in the Toronto Sun. It's a horrible piece of journalism. For example, Raybould says:

quote:

---

"You can call that what you like, but as far as I'm concerned, as I say, there's not one shred of evidence that he did not kill her."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Actually, the whole story is kind of weird. All I see is what is quoted above in the Toronto Sun. It's a horrible piece of journalism.

---

No question about it. I just finished 'Dark Days' by Kerry Pither, a book about the four Syrian-born Canadians who were 'extraordinarily rendered' and sent to be tortured. I don't know what makes more depressing reading: the fact that these men were brutally tortured with the complicity of our own government; or the fact that so many reporters who should have known better helped destroy their reputations here at home by printing leaked - and clearly erroneous - information.

I wonder if these reporters ever think about the effect these hatchet jobs have on people's lives.

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: Opinionation ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Opinionation:

Not to sound too critical, but I think you may have fallen into Raybould's trap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Opinionation:
The settlement process begins once - and if - the suit is certified.

---

Unionist suggested that Baltovich could sue if he doesn't like what Raybould is saying about him. That would be a lawsuit for defamation - not a lawsuit for malicious prosecution.

I suggested that a lawsuit against Raybould for defamation would not be successful. You agreed with me and said I was "correct" - and then went on to talk about a "settlement", but you must have been talking about a settlement in a lawsuit of a very different nature - i.e., for malicious prosecution.

I still maintain that nobody's going to get money in a "settlement" based on alleged injuries that are not actionable in court. If there's no cause of action for defamation, there's no basis for paying compensation in a "settlement" for damage to reputation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Opinionation:

No question about it. I just finished 'Dark Days' by Kerry Pither, a book about the four Syrian-born Canadians who were 'extraordinarily rendered' and sent to be tortured. I don't know what makes more depressing reading: the fact that these men were brutally tortured with the complicity of our own government; or the fact that so many reporters who should have known better helped destroy their reputations here at home by printing leaked - and clearly erroneous - information.

I wonder if these reporters ever think about the effect these hatchet jobs have on people's lives.

[ 26 October 2008: Message edited by: Opinionation ]

---

Having been the product of a 2000 word middle spread Sun Hatchet job some years ago--no they DON'T care about it, so long as they sell newspapers.

The Sun will literally take a sentence you said half an hour ago and attach it to your last sentence then totally out of context blend the two and create whatever they want utterly blindsiding their interview victim.

Thankfully, I had understanding neighbours who had previously been trashed and knew what they did, because their idiocy could have, quite literally, cost my life.

They demolished a dear friend of mine for radical activism. Two years later she won an award from them for her activism work. How's that for hypocrisy?

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
...you must have been talking about a settlement in a lawsuit of a very different nature - i.e., for malicious prosecution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Opinionation:
A 'gag' order is, in effect, an agreement that once a civil claim has been settled, the claimant will no longer make any statements about the claim, the civil process, or the terms of the settlement. Most 'wrongful conviction' claims - which are only now becoming common - require the plaintiff to agree that the target of the lawsuit did nothing wrong in exchange for an agreed-upon settlement.

---

Most settlements involve the plaintiff signing a release of all claims against the defendant(s). This bars any further lawsuits arising from the same circumstances.

quote:

---

Are Toronto Police really this stupid?

---

oh wait, this wasn't a rhetorical question...

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
That's why the thesis that Raybould was rushing to slander Baltovich before being "gagged" makes no sense.

---