|
Letter
from James Lockyer | Continuing story of Robert Stewart | Wilf Hathway |
Robert Stewart:
He has been incarcerated for nine years.
His son was murdered. But the cops have a ban on publishing the
details of how criminal Ontario Provincial Police set up him
and three others.
The snitch who got paid to
testify against Stewart got his "information" from
a newspaper article which carried false information. Crown
prosecutor Cooper said, that's okay if he wants to lie: we get
publication ban and no one will be any the wiser. (illustration
of how the "evidence" was manufactured.)
C34059 , C34060
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
- and -
ROBERT STEWART
Appellant
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT STEWART
I, ROBERT STEWART, of the City
of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, hereby
MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:
A. INTRODUCTION
1. I am the Applicant for bail pending appeal.
2. I am 52 years old having
been born on August 29, 1952 in Fredericton, New Brunswick.
I am a Canadian citizen.
3. Apart from the period of
time during which I have been incarcerated at Collins Bay Institution
in Kingston, Ontario, I have lived all my life in the Ottawa
area.
4. I am divorced, my former
wife, Linda Beland, and I had 1 son, Douglas,(now deceased).
5. I have completed Grade 12
at Gloucester High School in Ottawa. Apart from the convictions,
which are the subject of the appeal, I have a criminal record
which includes convictions for narcotics and assault.
6. My father, Douglas Stewart,
is 85 years old. I propose that he be my surety should I be granted
bail pending appeal. My father lives in Ottawa and is willing
to have me reside with him. He has also filed an affidavit in
support of my application for bail pending appeal.
7. In December, 1990. I was
arrested and charged with three co-defendants in connection with
the first degree murders of Manon Bourdeau and Michel Giroux.
I have been in custody since that date. The preliminary inquiry
in this matter commenced on September 30, 1991 and was completed
on June 29, 1993. The trial in this matter began on November
17, 1994 before Justice McWilliam of the Superior Court, sitting
with a jury. However, on September 6, 1995, my co-appellant Mallory
and I were severed from the prosecution of our two other co-defendants.
Their trial continued until they were convicted on May 30, 1996.
Mr. Mallory and I were then tried before McWilliam J. and a jury.
The trial began on September 2, 1997. We were convicted on February
1, 2000 of two counts of first degree murder. On March 17, 2000
I was sentenced to life in prison, with a period of parole ineligibility
of 25 years.
8. The appeal from the first
of the two trials before Justice McWilliam was heard on February
3-7, 2003 and disposed of in a judgment of this honourable Court
on January 30, 2004. Attached as Exhibit 1 to this affidavit
is this Court's judgment Regina v. Sauve and Trudel.
9. I am completely innocent
of the offences of which I have been convicted. Like Sauve and
Trudel, I have meritorious appeal. I have been incarcerated for
offences which I did not commit since December of 1990, nearly
fourteen years.
10. I have decided to represent
myself on my appeal, to this honourable Court and have discharged
my former counsel James Lockyer. The Court has appointed Ian
Smith to act as amicus curiae. Mr. Smith and his colleagues,
Louis Strezos and Joseph DiLuca, have provided assistance to
me, but I
intend to present my appeal myself. Likewise, although counsel
appointed as amicus have assisted me in preparing and bringing
this application for bail pending appeal, I will be representing
myself on the application and intend to present the argument
myself.
B.THE FACTS
11. In a nutshell, the Crown's theory at trial was as follows:
the victims were found dead on January 18, 1990. They died, according
to the Crown's expert, either on January 16 or 17. The Crown
asserted that the victims were killed because they were low level
drug dealers who were indebted to higher level drug dealers,
like me and Trudel. There was evidence that Mallory was my "enforcer",
and that Sauve was Trudel's enforcer. It was alleged that the
four of us agreed to kill the victims in order to make
an example of them for others who had drug debts. Accordingly,
on the Crown's theory I had one Denis Gaudreault (who sold drugs
for me, stored my weapon) drive me and my three co-defendants
to the home of the victims. While Gaudreault and I stayed in
the car, the other three ran into the house and murdered the
victims with a shotgun. They ran back out to the car and Gaudreault
drove all four of us to my house, at which point my then wife,
Linda Beland drove Gaudreault home.
12. These basic facts are set
out in a more expanded form in this Court's judgment in Sauve
and Trudel (Exhibit 1) at paragraphs 3 to 15.
C. GROUNDS OF APPEAL
13. I intend to pursue several grounds of appeal. These grounds
are summarized under the headings which follow. I understand
that amicus may submit that there were other errors at my trial,
in addition to the grounds of appeal that I will be advancing.
Before I discharged him, Mr. Lockyer filed a notice of appeal
on my behalf which sets out 17 grounds of appeal. A copy of that
notice of appeal is attached as Exhibit 2 my affidavit.
D. DENIS GAUDREAULT
14. In large measure the Crown's case rested on the evidence
of one Denis Gaudreault, a drug addict, an admitted liar and
perjurer, a paid police informant and a life-long criminal. As
noted in the judgment in Sauve and Trudel, Gaudreault has wondered
from time to time whether he had been hallucinating about the
murders. Gaudreault's credibility was the central issue at my
trial, as it was in the trial of Sauve and Trudel. Given the
many problems with Gaudreault's evidence, it was imperative that
the jury be
warned about the danger of relying on his evidence.
15. In Sauve and Trudel, this
court found fault with the Vetrovec warning used by Justice McWilliam
(see Exhibit 1, at paras.70-100). The same Vetrovec warning was
put to the jury at my trial. The relevant portion of the charge
to the Jury in my trial is attached as Exhibit 3 to my
affidavit.
16. The Crown has sought leave
to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Sauve and Trudel.
In the Crown's leave application, at paragraph 76, the following
submission is made:
The trial judge in the case
of the severed co-accused (who was the same judge as in this
case) gave a Vetrovec caution in terms that a similar to those
in this case. That case was the longest murder trial in Canadian
history, surpassing even this very, very long trial. While it
is the Applicant's position that the two trials remain discrete
proceedings and that they must be assessed on their own terms,
(especially on the contextual adequacy of the Vetrocec charge
and the 686 point) the potential significance of the judgement
in the instant matter cannot be ignored. The Court of Appeal
holding on the Vetrovec issue will obviously be advanced by the
Appellants in R. v. Stewart and Mallory as
dispositive of their appeal. The Court of Appeal and the parties
would benefit from correction and direction from this Honourable
Court.
The Crown's leave application
is attached as Exhibit 4 to my affidavit.
17. The unsavoury nature of
the evidence upon which the convictions were grounds is also
summarized in a letter dated May 13, 1998, written by my former
counsel, Mr. Lockyer, to the former Attorney General, Charles
Harnick. That letter is attached as Exhibit 5 to my affidavit.
18. In addition, however, I
also intend to argue that it is plain and obvious that Denis
Gaudreault had no independent knowledge about the murders precisely
because he was not present when they were committed. Instead,
it is plain and obvious that all the important details of Gaudreault's
testimony were gleaned from the Ottawa Citizen newspaper rather
than from any of his own personal observations.
My position in this respect
is set out in a letter by my friend Glenn McAllister, an Alberta
lawyer:
In 1996 Mr. Stewart's two co-accused,
James Sauve and Richard Trudel, were convicted of two counts,
first degree murder after a jury trial which lasted 16 months.
During the trial one of the lawyers for the defendants, John
McMunagle, had the Ottawa Citizen newspaper fax him all
of the newspaper articles which had been publish by that newspaper
that were related to the case. [05/18/94 10:28 FAAX 992-3289
PSC SECURITY] During the trial the transcripts of telephone conversations
recorded by Denis Gaudreault sister and given to the police were
entered into
evidence and became know to Mr. Stewart. Mr. Stewart cross-referenced
Denis "Eliminated speech" and the Jan. 23, 1990 Ottawa
Citizen newspaper article written by a reporter Alana Kainz.
It is immediately apparent that all of the information provided
by Denis Gaudreault to the investigating officer, H. Lamarche,
in one of the recorded telephone conversations is contained in
the newspaper article. Also included in the information provided
by Denis Gaudreault is an error deliberately planted by Supt.
Wib Craig of the O.P.P. to identify false informants.
Amazingly this and other errors that were unintentionally reported
and recited by Denis Gaudreault seem to be overlooked in the
trial since their presence in Denis Gaudreault's statement cannot
be coincidence.
Mr. Stewart pointed out to
the writer as early as 1996 that it was virtual certainty that
Denis Gaudreault had garnered his original information from the
newspaper. Mr. Stewart also informed other people including his
counsel, the OPP, CJOH, television, and the producers at W-5.
Nothing seemed to come of this information at that time other
than an offer from the Crown to Mr. Stewart that if he were to
plead guilty Mr. Mallory would get "time served" and
Mr. Stewart would get "life 10." on a joint submission
on sentence. This would mean that Mr. Stewart
would be placed in a half way house within two weeks of sentence
and Mr. Mallory would be out. In addition the written deal would
contain a guarantee that neither Mr. Stewart nor Mallory would
be compelled to testify against Mr. Sauve or Trudel should a
new trail be ordered.
Neither Mr. Stewart no Mr. Mallory agreed to the proposed offer.
One can only assume that innocent men would be loath to plead
guilty to a crime that they did not commit.
At trial on January 13, 1999
on redirect by the Crown of the witness, detective H. Lamarche,
January 13, 1999, it came to light that Det. Lamarche had given
newspaper articles from the Ottawa Citizen dated January 20,
21, and 22, 1990 as part of the disclosure package provided
to both the crown and defence counsel, but had held back copies
of the Ottawa Citizen articles dated January 23, 26, and February
2, 1990, as well as articles published in the Ottawa Sun at about
the same time and that dealt with the reporting of the case at
bar. Det. H Lamarche has
never been cross-examined as to why these very relevant Materials
were not disclosed. Mr. Stewart believes that it had to be an
intentional decision by Det. Lamarche, either alone or in consultation
with other members of the investigating team, to avoid producing
information that
would cast serious doubt on the information provided by the main
police
witness.
Despite Mr. Stewart's deep
concerns over the conduct of all the police officer involved
in the investigation, and especially the conduct of H. Lamarche,
Mr. Stewart's counsel did not attack the techniques of credibility
of H. Lamarche at trail. In fact, Mr. Stewart disagreed so
vehemently with the content of Ms. Mulligan's closing address
to the jury that he wished to dismiss her as counsel but was
convinced by his co-accused and other that it would be folly
to dismiss counsel after the trial proper had been completed.
Ms. Mulligan would not use Mr. Stewart's chart showing the similarities
between Denis Gaudreault's story of what had happened and the
Ottawa Citizen newspaper article of January 23, 1990 or bring
up the fact that Det. H. Lamarche had withheld the newspaper
clippings despite knowing of their existence. Apparently Mr.
Stewart's counsel, Susan Mulligan, felt that the jury "liked'
H. Lamarche, and would not follow Mr. Stewart's wishes that H.
Lamarche's credibility be attacked on the basis of the newspaper
clipping and, the writer would guess, other matters.
Mr. McAllister letter, dated
April, 23, 2003, is found behind a cover letter dated April 29,
2003 and is attached as Exhibit 6 to my affidavit. Included as
part of that letter is the chart that I prepared showing the
marked similarities between the story of Mr. Gaudreault and the
January 23, 1990 Ottawa Citizen article. The fax referred to
in Mr. McAllister's letter [05/19/94 10:38 FAAX [sic] 992-3289
PSC SECURITY] is attached as Exhibit 7 to my affidavit.
19. The January 23, 1990 article,
which was Exhibit P at my trial, is attached as Exhibit 8 to
my affidavit.
20. I have prepared extensive
notes on this issue. They appear to Exhibit 9 to my affidavit.
21. In addition, I set out
my position on this matter in a letter I wrote to Mr. Smith on
December 10, 2003. That letter is attached as Exhibit 10 to my
affidavit.
22. I also discussed this issue
at length with my former counsel at Lockyer, Campbell. In particular,
I discussed it with Catherine Glaister of that firm in a call
that I recorded on March 12, 2003. A transcript of that call
is attached as Exhibit 11 to my affidavit. Another copy of that
transcript, disclosed by Crown counsel on this appeal, is attached
as Exhibit 12 to my affidavit along with Crown counsel's cover
letter and the "Will Say" of Detective Constabel J.
Nussey.
23. I also attach as Exhibit
13 a copy of a chart by the police to Mr.Gaudreault. It was part
of Exhibit Q at trial.
24. Attached as Exhibit 14
is a transcript of an intercepted telephone call between Mr.
Gaudreault and his sister, Sylvie Gravelle. This transcript became
Exhibit 229 at my trial.
25. Attached as Exhibit 15
to my affidavit are newspaper articles and part of the argument
about the failure of the police to investigate fully in this
case. These documents were Exhibits 274, 270 and AA at my trial.
26. The relevant portion of
Mr. Gaudreault's evidence at my trial (pages 3500 to 3536 of
the transcript) is attached as Exhibit 16 to my affidavit.
27. A ruling made by Justice
McWilliam (pages 3481 to 3486) with respect to the cross-examination
of Gaudreault on the newspaper articles is attached as Exhibit
17 to my affidavit. An excerpt from the argument preceding that
ruling is attached as Exhibit 18 to my affidavit.
28. The relevant portion of
the evidence of Garrett Nelson at my trial (pages 8942 to 8953)
is attached as Exhibit 19 to my affidavit.
29. The relevant portion of
Det. Lamarche's evidence (pages 6058 to 6062) is attached as
Exhibit 20 to my affidavit.
30. The relevant portion of
the Crown's address to the jury on this point (pages 22589 to
22598; 22606 to 22639; 22650 to 22662) is attached as Exhibit
21 to my affidavit.
31. The relevant portion of
the charge to the jury (pages 23358 to 23363 is attached as Exhibit
22 to my affidavit. The jury was also provided with a written
version of part of the charge. The relevant portion of the written
version (pages 315 to 319) is attached as Exhibit 23.
32. Excerpts from the evidence
of Denis Gaudreault ot the trial of Trudel and Sauve are attached
as Exhibit 24 to my affidavit. Excerpts from the evidence of
Denis Gaudreault at the preliminary inquiry are attached as Exhibit
25 to my affidavit.
33. Excerpts from the evidence
of Denis Gaudreault at the trial of Trudel and Sauve are attached
as Exhibit 26 to my affidavit. Excerpts from the evidence of
Denis Gaudreault at the preliminary inquiry are attached as Exhibit
27 to my affidavit.
34. Excerpts from the disclosure
brief containing the statements of Denis Gaudreault are attached
as Exhibit 28 to my affidavit. These excerpts were part of Exhibit
[????] at my trial.
E. LINDA BELAND
35. Denis Gaudreult testified that, after the murder, he drove
me and my three co-accused back to my house at my direction.
He testified that I then instructed my then wife, Linda Beland,
to drive Gaudreault home. At my trial, Beland testified that
she could not remember driving Gaudreault home at any time, but
she did not deny that it was possible that she may have done
so. I have maintained since the day Beland testified that this
was not properly put to her. In particular, I have maintained
that the entire circumstance of her alleged involvement on the
evening in question, as described by Gaudreault, has never been
put to Beland so that she could confirm or deny it. I believe
at trial, that
if she had been told of Gaudreault's description, she would have
denied completely that Gaudreault's account could be true. She
would have denied absolutely that she drove Gaudreault home.
However, neither the Crown nor my counsel put these questions
to Ms. Beland. Moreover, none of the many police officers who
ever spoke to Ms. Beland in the course of the investigation in
this matter ever, to my knowledge, ever put the entire scenario
to Ms. Beland so that she could comment.
36. As a result, after Ms.
Beland testified, with the assistance of a friend, one Judy Armstrong,
I telephoned Ms. Beland and, without her knowledge, recorded
our conversation. I put to Ms. Beland the events of the night
in question to which she ought to have been privy were Gaudreault's
evidence
true. Ms. Beland vehemently denied that she had driven Gaudreault
home in such circumstances. A transcript of the recording of
that conversation, prepared by amicus, appears along with a cover
letter from Mr. Strezos dated July 19, 2004 as Exhibit 29 to
my affidavit.
37. At my direction, my father
gave the tape of this telephone call to my counsel, Susan Mulligan,
shortly after it took place, but she did not use it in any way
at my trial. Later, when I asked for the tape back, Ms.Mulligan
said that she could not remember or find it. Only after amicus
asked Ms. Mulligan to look for the tape was it located. I was
provided with a copy of the transcript of the tape roughly 5
years after I had it given to Ms. Mulligan by my father.
38. In the meantime, because
the first tape was missing, I taped another conversation with
Ms. Beland, in which she yet again denied that she drove Gaudreault
home as he had claimed. A transcript of that
telephone conversation, which occurred on May 22, 2003, is attached
as Exhibit 30.
39. Subsequently, Ms. Beland
swore an affidavit saying positively that she did not drive Gaudreault
home. That affidavit is attached as Exhibit 31 to my affidavit.
I have also previously sworn an affidavit respecting these an
other issues. It is attached as Exhibit 32 to my affidavit.
40. Relevant excerpts from
the argument and evidence of Ms. Beland at my trial respecting
these issues (pages 11625;11875 to 11890) are attached as Exhibit
33 to my affidavit.
41. Relevant excerpts from
the argument and evidence of Gaudreault at my trial respecting
these issues (pages 2077 to 2079; 2095 to 2100; 2109 to 2116;
3890 to 3913; 3907 to 3910) are attached as Exhibit 34 to my
affidavit.
42. The relevant evidence of
Detective Ian Davidson (pages 15085 to 15121; 15173 to 15179;
15264 to 15267) are attached as Exhibit 35 to my affidavit.
43. The relevant portions of
the Crown's address to the jury (pages 22650 to 22652; 23102
to 23108) are attached as Exhibit 36 to my affidavit.
44. During my trial, Ms. Beland
was living with an auxiliary O.P.P. officer from the Rockland
detachment. I wrote to Ms. Beland about my concerns about this.
My letter to Ms. Beland is attached as Exhibit 37 to my affidavit.
45. On September 22, 2003,
I told his honourable Court that I wished to have Ms. Beland
re-interviewed. Attached as Exhibit 38 Justice Weiler's endorsement
to this effect.
46. I understand that amicus
intend to interview Ms. Beland and that they have asked the Crown
to gather together all of Ms. Beland's prior statements so that
they can prepare for that interview. Attached as Exhibit 39 to
my affidavit is a letter to me form Mr. Strezos, dated August
4, 2004, attaching the Crown's catalogue of Ms. Beland's prior
statements. Some of my notes are attached to this letter.
F. JOHN SMALLWOOD
47. At my trial, the jury heard the evidence of one John Smallwood,
a jailhouse informant. Smallwood was equipped with a "body
pack" and surreptitiously recorded conversation that he
had with me at the
detention centre. The transcript of the conversation that Smallwood
had with me was edited before it was presented to the jury. My
repeated denials that I had anything to do with the murders were
deleted while
utterances of minimal value but which the Crown believed to be
inculpatory, remained. I believe that the jury was presented
with an unfair version of the Smallwood recordings.
48. The relevant portions from
the argument and evidence of Smallwood (pages 13956 to 13981;
14142 to 14147;14278 to 14286; 14299 to 14303; 14579 to 14620;
14648 to 14651) are attached as Exhibit 40 to my affidavit.
49. My notes on this point
are attached as Exhibit 41 to my affidavit.
50. An edited transcript of
the Smallwood conversations (which was Exhibit 290 at my trial)
is attached as Exhibit 42 to my affidavit. A full transcript
of the recording prepared by the defence is attached as
Exhibit 43 to my affidavit.
51. The trial judge's ruling
on the admissibility of statements I made to Smallwood is attached
as Exhibit 44 to my affidavit.
G. REASONABLE APPREHENSION
OF BIAS
52. Justice McWilliam preceded over the trial of my severed co-accused,
Trudel and Sauve. They were convicted. Upon hearing their verdict,
Justice McWilliam thanked the jury for coming to conclusion that
was "more that reasonable". About two weeks following
that trial and before my trial began Justice McWilliam held a
party for the jurors, court staff and counsel from the trial
of Sauve and Trudel. The jurors and Crown counsel attended. None
of the defence counsel attended. In addition, between the trials,
Mr. Justice William attended a function at the Congress Centre
in Ottawa and sat with the prosecutors and one of the Investigators.
53. On December 16, 1995, my
counsel brought a motion before the Chief Justice of the Superior
Court to have Justice McWilliam removed from my trail. The Chief
Justice ruled that he did not have jurisdiction to make such
an order. That ruling is attached as Exhibit 45 to my affidavit.
54. That same day, my counsel
brought a recusal motion before Justice McWilliam. He ruled against
the motion. His ruling, dated January 14, 1997 is attached as
Exhibit 46 to my affidavit.
55. On January 5, 1998, with
assistance of David Scott, Q.C. a second recusal motion was brought
before Justice McWilliam. Again, Justice McWilliam ruled against
the motion. This second ruling, dated January
9, 1998 is attached as Exhibit 47 to my affidavit.
56. I believe that Justice
McWilliam erred by failing to find a reasonable apprehension
of bias in all of these circumstances.
G. PROBLEMS WITH MY COUNSEL
57. Since my conviction, I have had considerable difficulty pursuing
my appeal. My relationships with counsel have been strained and
none of them has pursued the appeal in the manner I would like.
That is why I am representing myself on my appeal. These difficulties,
which are exacerbated by my incarceration pending my appeal,
are described in my correspondence with counsel, amicus, Legal
Aid Ontario, the Correctional Law Project, the Court and the
Crown. All of the relevant correspondence is gathered together,
presented in chronological order and attached as Exhibit 48 to
my affidavit.
58. Some members of the press
have expressed interest in these difficulties and in my appeal.
Correspondence from members of the press is attached as Exhibit
49 to this affidavit.
H. "TIME SERVED'
59. Before my trial, the Crown offered me "Life 10"
on a guilty plea and a transfer to a halfway house in two weeks.
Mallory was offered "time served" on a plea to manslaughter.
We did not accept this offer because we had nothing to do with
the deaths of Manon Bourdeau and Michel Giroux.
I. CONCLUSION
60. My lengthy incarceration has had a shattering impact on my
life and that of my family. Attached as Exhibit 50 is an article
from the Ottawa Citizen dated November 27, 1993 describing the
actions of one of the prosecutors. Attached as Exhibit 51 is
a letter I recently received from my former wife, Linda Beland.
Pictures of our family, which were made exhibit 241 at my trial,
are attached as Exhibit 52. Recently, our son Douglas was murdered
in Ottawa. My son was helping me on my appeal. To my knowledge,
his death is being investigated by only one detective; the only
Ottawa detective to testified at my trial. I understand that
he has accidentally destroyed the only surveillance video of
who went into my son's building the night of his murder. Attached
as Exhibit 53 are excerpts from the Ottawa press respecting my
son's murder.
Sworn before me at the City
of Kingston In the Province of Ontario this 12 day of November,
2004.
Robert Stewart
______________
In 1996 Mr. Stewart's two co-accused,
James Sauve and Richard Trudel, were convicted of two counts
of first degree murder after a jury trial which lasted 16 months.
During this trial one of the lawyers for the defendants, John
McMunagle, had the Ottawa Citizen newspaper fax to him all of
the newspaper articles which had been published by that newspaper
that were related to the case. [05/18/94 1028 FAAX 992-3289 PSC
SECURITY] During the trial the transcripts of telephone conversations
recorded by Denis Gaudreault's sister and given to the police
were entered into evidence and became know
to Mr. Stewart. Mr. Stewart cross-referenced Denis' "Eliminated
speech" and the Jan. 23, 1990 Ottawa Citizen newspaper article
written by a reporter Alana Dainz. It is immediately apparent
that all of the information provided by Denis Gaudreault
to his sister in one of the recorded telephone conversations
is contained in the newspaper article. Also included in the information
provided by Denis Gaudreault is an error deliberately planted
by Supt. Wib Craig of the O.P.P. to identify false informants.
Amazingly this and other errors that were unintentionally reported
and recited by Denis Gaudreault seem to be overlooked in the
trial. Their presence in Denis Gaudreault's statement cannot
be coincidence.
Mr. Stewart pointed out to
the writer as early as 1996 that it was a virtual certainty that
Denis Gaudreault had garnered his original information from the
newspaper. Mr. Stewart also informed other people including his
counsel, the OPP, CJOH television, and the producers at W5. Nothing
seemed to come of this information at that time other than an
offer from the Crown to Mr. Stewart that if he were to plead
guilty Mr. Mallory would get "time served" and Mr.
Stewart
would get "life 10" on a joint submission on sentence.
This would mean that Mr. Stewart would be placed in a half way
house within two weeks of sentence and Mr. Mallory would be out.
In addition the written deal would contain a guarantee that neither
Mr. Stewart nor Mr. Mallory would be compelled to testify against
Mr. Sauve or Mr. Trudel, should a new trial be ordered. Neither
Mr. Stewart nor Mr. Mallory agreed to the proposed offer.
One can only assume that innocent men would be loath to plead
guilty to a crime that they did not commit.
At trial of Mr. Stewart and
Richard Mallory, on redirect by the Crown of the witness dectective
H. Lamarche, January 13, 1999, it came to light that Det. Lamarche
had given newspaper articles from the Ottawa Citizen dated January
20, 21, and 22, 1990 as part of the disclosure package provided
to both the crown and defence counsel, but had held back copies
of the Ottawa Citizen articles dated January 23, 26, and February
2, 1990, as well as articles published in the Ottawa Sun at about
the
same time and that dealt with the reporting of the case at bar.
Det. H. Lamarche has never been cross-examined as to why these
very relevant materials were not disclosed. Mr. Stewart believes
that it had to be an intentional decision by Det. Lamarche, either
alone or in consultation with other members of the investigating
team, to avoid producing information
that would cast serious doubt on the information provided by
the main police witness.
While Mr. Stewart's case was
before the courts there was another murder trial proceeding in
Ottawa against a woman by the name of Julia Elliott. The lead
investigator in this investigation was one Lyle McCharles, the
same lead investigator involved in Mr. Stewart's case. On Tuesday
September 8, 1999 Justice Paul Cosgrove, the Justice hearing
the Elliott trial, stayed the proceedings against her, stating,
as reported by the Ottawa Citizen on Sept. 8, 1999, "that
deceit on the part of several Ontario Provincial Police officers
and misconduct by various Crown attorneys has irreparably destroyed
her right to a fair trial".
A publication ban was ordered
by the Justice hearing the matters involving Mr. Stewart to prevent
the names of the police officers or crown involved in the Elliot
trial being divulged in the media.
Despite Mr. Stewart's deep
concerns over the conduct of all the police officers involved
in the investigation, and especially the conduct of H. Lamarche,
Mr. Stewart's counsel did not attack the techniques or credibility
of H. Lamarche at trial. In fact, Mr. Stewart disagreed so vehemently
with the content of Ms. Mulligan's closing address to the jury
that he wished to dismiss her as counsel but was convinced by
his co-accused and others that it would be folly to dismiss counsel
after the trial proper had been completed. Ms. Mulligan would
not use Mr. Stewart's chart showing the similarities between
Denis Gaudreault's story of what had happened and the Ottawa
Citizen newspaper article of January 23, 1990 or bring up the
fact that Det. H. Lamarche had withheld the newspaper clippings
despite knowing of their existence. Apparently Mr. Stewart's
counsel, Susan Mulligan, felt that the jury "liked"
H. Lamarche, and would not follow Mr. Stewart's wishes that H.
Lamarche's credibility be attacked on the basis of the newspaper
clippings and, the writer would guess, other matters.
In the original trial Mr. Steward
and Richard Mallory were severed from the trial proceeding.
The writer is not sure why James Sauve and Richard Trudel were
convicted.
When the trial involving only
Mr. Stewart and Richard Mallory commenced, the same Justice,
David McWilliams,
who had presided on the trial of Sauve and Trudel sat as Justice
on the trial of Stewart and Mallory.
This situation was challenged by counsel for Mr. Stewart and
by counsel for Mr. Mallory but never satisfactorily decided.
Of all the accused only Richard
Mallory gave evidence. Richard Mallory was convicted of lessor
offences than the other three accused, all of who were convicted
of murder. Richard Mallory denied any involvement in the murders,
either by himself or by any of the other accused.
PRESENT SITUATION AND CONCERNS
Mr. Stewart's convictions are
currently under appeal. Mr. Stewart understood that James Lockyer,
of the Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted, was
in charge of his appeal. Upon speaking to Mr. Lockyer directly
Mr. Stewart has become concerned that the previous relationship
between Mr. Lockyer and Mr. Stewart's counsel at trial, Sue Mulligan,
might inhibit Mr. Lockyer's ability to present the appeal.
Mr. Stewart has requested that
the writer, as an old friend, prepare the above summary to the
best of his ability and distribute a copy of this summary to
persons or organizations which might be interested in Mr. Stewart's
predicament and be willing to offer assistance or advice. To
the best of Mr. Stewart's recall he has had 27 lawyers involved
in his matters over the last 12 years and has lost some of the
faith he had in our justice system. In Mr. Stewart's opinion
no lawyer who has represented him has wanted to bring up the
facts surrounding the conduct of Det. H. Lamarche
Mr. Stewart is currently incarcerated.
He may be reached at:
Collins Bay
Box 6700
455 Bath Road
Kingston, Ontario
K7L 5P8
The writer may be reached at
the address on the letterhead. Mr. Stewart's knowledge of the
case is obviously much better than the writer's but the writer
is available for further information or clarification if it is
required.
CONCLUSION
It is the writer's personal
belief and opinion that Mr. Stewart (along with the three other
people convicted in the same case) is innocent and has been wrongfully
convicted.
It is also apparent that the investigators and possibly the Crown
in these matters have had their actions questioned by the Judiciary
in the past and Mr. Stewart's allegations of misconduct in his
case bear further investigation. It has always seemed that there
were huge holes in the case against the defendants but all were
convicted. The writer is not personally in a position to assist
Mr. Stewart further than has been requested at present but is
hopeful that someone or some organization is able to provide
Mr. Stewart with the help that he most certainly requires and
deserves to preserve the integrity of the Canadian legal system
and to ensure that Mr. Stewart and three other people do not
serve long prison sentences for a crime that they did not commit.
Thank you for your time. Enclosed
herewith is a side-by-side comparison prepared by Mr. Stewart
of the telephone conversation between Denis Gaudreault and his
sister, a translated transcript of which was in the possession
of the O.P.P. and Det. H. Lamarche, and the Jan. 23, 1990 newspaper
article which Mr. Stewart, but apparently no one else other than
the writer, considers of vital importance.
Prentice Chow McLean McAllister
Lawyers
Martin D. Prentice, B.A., LL.B.*
Glenn G. McAllister, B.A., LL.B.*
Mae L. Chow, B.Sc., LL.B.*
Glenn J.K. McLean, B.A., LL.B.* Tel (780) 9682900 Fax (780) 9682224
Carl J. Gill, B.A., LL.B.*
E-mail prenchow@telusplanet.net
Colin B. Webb, LL.B._ www.prenticechow.com
*Professional Corporation With offices in Drayton Valley
_Student-At-Law
4812 - 50 Avenue
P.O. Box 3102
Stony Plain, Alberta,
T7Z 1S8
RE Robert A. Stewart; DOB August
29, 1952, Wrongful conviction Ontario
The writer is a member in good
standing of the Alberta Law Society. The writer is also a long
time friend of the above mentioned Robert Stewart, hereinafter
referred to as "Mr. Stewart". The writer is sending
this letter, not as a solicitor,
but at the request of Mr. Stewart and because the writer, having
followed Mr. Stewart's case for over twelve years believes that
Mr. Stewart has been the victim of a tunnel vision investigation
and manufactured or tainted evidence produced by the investigating
members of the Ontario Provincial Police and a refusal or inability
of counsel to investigate or pursue this police activity during
the course of the long procedure which culminated in Mr. Stewart's
conviction on two counts of first degree murder.
If Mr. Stewart is correct in
his conclusions of the activities of the police, Crown and the
Court during the past decade (and, although the writer does not
have all the facts at his fingertips, from what is known it is
believed that Mr. Stewart is probably correct) a revelation of
those activities is desperately needed, not only to exonerate
Mr. Stewart and three other wrongfully convicted accused, but
to illustrate that the O.P.P. have learned nothing from the fallout
from the Guy Paul Morin fiasco.
The following is a description
of the facts and proceedings involving or related to Mr. Stewart
based on Mr. Stewart's indications to the writer and the writer's
own recollection of some matters, along with media reports.
Please remember that it took over 9 years for Mr. Stewart's matters
to come to trial and during that time the four accused were held
in custody without bail, not exactly a speedy trial.
By way of background:
In January of 1990 two people,
Michel Giroux and Manon Bourdeau, were found shot to death in
their residence near Cumberland, Ontario. Shortly before Christmas,
1990, Mr. Stewart and three other individuals, Richard Mallory,
James Sauve, and Richard Trudel were charged with these murders.
Mr. Stewart and the other three accused have lengthy criminal
records.
Virtually the entire case as
set forth by the police revolved around the statements and evidence
given by a police informant, Denis Gaudreault. It must be pointed
out here that Denis Gaudreault has an extremely lengthy criminal
record and has been rewarded handsomely for his information over
the past several years. The writer's figures may be off a little,
but all
told by the end of trial it is believed Denis Gaudreault had
been the recipient of over $400,000.00 of the taxpayers money
for his testimony and subsequent protection under the witness
protection plan.
To the best of the writer's
knowledge there is no physical evidence to link the four convicted
persons either to the scene
of the murder or to either of the murdered individuals prior
to the date of the murder. Subsequent to the murder the evidence
linking the convicted persons to the murders came from Denis
Gaudreault, acquaintances of Denis Gaudreault, or jailhouse informants.
Mr. Gaudreault and most if not all of his acquaintances that
provided information to the police were past associates of Mr.
Stewart and had stolen over $23,000.00 dollars from Mr. Stewart
in fraudulent drug deals.
Denis Gaudreault gave many
conflicting, or at the very least inconsistent, versions of what
he claimed had occurred in relation to the murders but the police
appeared to be convinced that Denis Gaudreault had intimate knowledge
of the case.
Mr. Stewart was not provided
with a computer disc or discs containing his disclosure as provided
by the Crown. It is believed that it was a ruling of the presiding
judge at trial that Mr. Stewart could only have disclosure in
photocopied form, not computer recorded form, despite the fact
that photocopied form comprised 60 banker's boxes and this disclosure
had,
in fact, been reduced to computer records at a cost to the Ontario
Government of about $140,000.00. Mr. Stewart's counsel at trial,
Susan Mulligan, could only get disclosure in paper form. Ms.
Mulligan was not the original counsel and was busy attempting
to familiarize herself with the myriad of information and did
not have time to supply the written disclosure to Mr. Stewart.
Ms. Mulligan did manage to have about 5000 pages of the disclosure
transcribed to computer form at defence expense, but that was
all. Mr. Stewart only received the portion of the disclosure
that Ms.Mulligan deemed most important.
June 30, 2003
Dear Sir/Madam
Other information is available
on request.
Yours truly,
PRENTICE CHOW MCLEAN MCALLISTER
PER GLENN G. McALLISTER
/ggm
___________________
OPP Rick Riddell THURSDAY,
JUNE 5th, 1997
Q. You heard through the investigation from various sources about
Manon telling people that her father had raped her .
A. Yes , she told Marge Prévost that and I believe she
told, I believe, I'll have to check - but I think she told Lois
Davidson that.
Q. As well as Rick Burridge and Sherry McCullough?
A. Oh maybe. Maybe she never told Davidson. I know she told more
than one.
Q. Okay. You were aware of it and on the 23rd you have a note
"allegedly Mr. Bourdeau had a sexual relationship with Manon
---
A. That's right .
Q. --- in past, caused her to do coke.
A. Yes, and Marge Prévost said that that was '88.
Q. "Did Giroux find out - concentration" et cetera
and that's your own thoughts.
A. That's right.
Q. What did you do about that? Did you ever speak to Mr. Bourdeau
about it?
A. No , Mr. Bourdeau was never a suspect for his daughter's death
as far as I was concerned. I can't see any .....
Q. You couldn't see any father doing that, could you? Yet we
see in the paper all the time where parents kill their children,
murder-suicides, murders.
A. Yeah you do, but he was never a suspect for me, never.
Q. And you never asked him about any of this to see if it was
true.
A. It was kind of moot now.
Q. Yes, it is.
THE COURT: But you don't often
see cases with that motive to protect themselves from future
rape charges, you know? Parents murder their children but the
circumstances are not sort of like that.
THE WITNESS: They're generally not in their late 20s or early
30s, whatever she was.
MS. MULLIGAN:
Q. The same with sexual assaults on their children, they're generally
not adult children who are being sexually assaulted -- right?
-- it's usually younger children?
A. Yeah, well I would've thought that Manon was old enough and
big enough to put up quite a fight.
Q. All right. And aside from the motive that His Honour mentioned,
it would be unusual. You also had lots of information, and you
told us about some of that, that Claude Bourdeau and Michel Giroux
were like oil and water, they didn't get along at all.
A. That's our information, yes, and Claude Bourdeau didn't like
Mike Giroux ---
Q. You also ---
A. --- and didn't like the lifestyle - I'm just repeating myself
- he didn't like the lifestyle his daughter was in with this
guy .
Q. You also had information that people reported that he was
jealous of Giroux?
A. You'd have to show me that one. Jealous?
Q. It may be Marge Prévost's, I'm not sure.
A. I don't know. It possibly is there some place. Sylvain Bourdeau
and Jennifer Bourdeau and Mrs. Bourdeau, I think if there had've
been one iota of evidence that Claude could've done that, we
would've been told immediately, right away, quick type thing
because, like, they were devastated by that -- by that death.
Q. Through the course of your investigation and your own observations,
you learned that Claude had a problem with alcohol?
A. Oh yes, he was -- he was -- he had a really good job with
Potvin Construction in Rockland and he ended up losing it. He
was seven days a week an alcoholic.
A very very serious problem.
Q. And you also knew that on occasion when he was drinking he
was violent, you learned that?
A. Yes .
Q. You also learned that he had access to a number of shotguns.
A. A number of shotguns? I know he had --I know he had -- I know
he had weapons. He was a hunter and he used to -- I remember
one time talking to him about hunting, he liked to go moose hunting.
Q. And you became aware of the occurrence on January 17th '91
the domestic scene with Claude Bourdeau and his wife and his
daughter?
A. Yeah .
Q. That they were afraid to go home because he had a .12-gauge
in his closet?
A. Yeah .
Q. That he ---
A. His wife and him ended up breaking up after that.
Q. He was never asked --- He also tried to strangel his wife,
to choke his wife that day, right?
A. I'd have to see the report but I remember that report. There
was a domestic with ..... Jennifer and Yvette ended up moving
out I'm pretty sure at one time, then there was a separation
and now they're back together and the last information I had
was that neither Yvette nor Claude are drinking.
Q. And we have -- you have no idea to this day where Mr. Bourdeau
was on either the 16th or the 17th of January? Is that fair to
say?
A. That's fair to say. He was never a suspect for me, never.
Claude Bourdeau . .
Robert Stewart's Notes:
Manon`s father collected over 100,000.00 dollars in life insurance
within days of the bodies being found.
Claude Bourdeau insured Mike
Giroux life just 4 months before the murders, even though
Manon's father disliked Mr. Giroux and did not approve of his
relationship with his daughter.
Claude Bourdeau tried to kill
his wife January 17, 1991, that was one year to the day we claim
that Mike Giroux and Manon Bourdeau must of died. We had been
arrested just 3 weeks prior.
Jim Sauve was in a 1/2 way
house on the night of January 17 1990 all night.
Both the Doctors first two
reports claimed that Mike Giroux and Manon Bourdeau died on January
17, 1990. But would later change the time of death at the crowns
persistence.
Manon`s father has never been
interviewed. He was to drunk and the police never went back.
He was quoted in the news paper
as saying:
"The family is at a loss to explain the killings. "We
have no idea (what happened)." said Claude Bourdeau. "They
were very happy together. They had no enemies that we knew of".
Manon`s mother had said she
last spoke with Manon on January 17, 1990, but, like the Medical
Examiner, changed her story after the OPP claimed she was wrong
about the date.
They are long distance form
her daughter, therefore the phone bill should prove when the
two last spoke on the phone. The phone bill was picked up by
the OPP and given to Heather Lamarhce.
Apparently, . . Lamarche has now lost the bill and Bell Canada
claims it no longer has phone records for that phone number ?
? ?
continuing
with Dave
Dunbar
________________
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell
