|
We thank Disclosure for providing a link.
Driskell pages: one | two | three | four | five | 2005 | Terry
Arnold | New: Blogging
RCMP Informants
Inquiry
iunderway, summer 2006
Limited in scope to limit damage to the Crown | Dan
Lett backgrounder in the Winnipeg Free Press, July, 2006
|
James Driskell
>
> > | Justice
Minister Mackintosh gets involved | Premier gets involved | More layers of
the criminal prosecutorial cover-up are revealed
- Winnipeg Chief Ewatski
and Manitoba Justice Minister Mackintosh scramble to keep the
truth secret
- Province agrees to
more DNA tests in murder case
March 19th, 2003, By Dan
Lett, Winnipeg Free Press
THE Manitoba Justice Department
has agreed to move ahead with additional DNA tests in a bid to
settle the issue of James Patrick Driskell's innocence.
Bruce McFarlane, assistant
deputy minister of justice, said his department is assembling
an inventory of all remaining exhibits from the original murder
investigation to see if any other pieces of physical evidence
warrant DNA testing.
Once that inventory is completed,
McFarlane said he will meet with Driskell's legal team to decide
which pieces of evidence might yield DNA results, where they
should be tested and who should pay.
Driskell was convicted in 1991
for the first-degree murder of Perry Dean Harder, whose remains
were found in September 1990. He had been shot several times
in the chest.
Driskell has consistently protested
his innocence.
DNA results received last December
eliminated three hairs the Crown introduced as evidence. A Free
Press investigation has uncovered a number of new facts, including
confirmation that a key witness tried to recant his testimony
and the revelation that witnesses were paid tens of thousands
of dollars in exchange for their testimony.
McFarlane said the province
is not yet prepared to join with Driskell's lawyers to ask the
federal government to send the case back to the Manitoba Court
of Appeal.
McFarlane said the DNA results
are "unsettling" and require an independent, third-party
review.
The province has recommended
Driskell file an application under Sec. 696 of the Criminal Code,
which allows the federal justice minister to review and overturn
possible miscarriages of justice.
Alan Libman, one of Driskell's
lawyers, said Sec. 696 allows the minister to refer a questionable
conviction to a court of appeal, including the Supreme Court
of Canada. However, without consent from Manitoba, it will take
years for the federal Justice Department to review Driskell's
submission, Libman said.
Driskell's legal team has identified
three pieces of evidence collected in the original murder investigation
which may prove useful in supporting Driskell's claim of innocence.
dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca
New trial for Driskell?
More DNA tests sought to put case before Appeal Court
Tuesday, March 18th, 2003,
By Dan Lett, Winnipeg Free Press
JUSTICE Minister Gord Mackintosh
is studying a plan devised by lawyers for James Patrick Driskell
to launch a new barrage of DNA tests and put his case back before
the Manitoba Court of Appeal to determine if a new trial is warranted.
James Lockyer, the lead lawyer
representing Driskell, asked Mackintosh yesterday to join him
in asking the federal government to refer Driskell's case back
to the Manitoba Court of Appeal under Sec. 696 of the Criminal
Code.
Lockyer has also asked that
at least three additional pieces of physical evidence from Driskell's
case be subjected to DNA testing.
Lockyer said he is not asking
Mackintosh to support Driskell's claims of innocence, but simply
to allow a court of law to hear new evidence and decide whether
a new trial is necessary. Without Manitoba's support, it could
take years to negotiate the federal review process.
"All we're asking is for
them to concede that this case ought to be heard in a courtroom,"
said Lockyer. "No more, and no less."
Mackintosh was not available
for comment yesterday, but a spokesman said the justice minister
is "considering" Lockyer's offer. However, the Driskell
legal team may have presented an option that gives Manitoba a
practical solution to the dilemma of how best to deal with this
complex case.
Mackintosh previously said
he would support a Sec. 696 review, which allows the federal
justice minister to overturn or review a questionable conviction.
However, Mackintosh has so
far stopped short of supporting the Driskell team's desire to
have the case back before a court of appeal.
Driskell was convicted in 1991
of the first-degree murder of his friend, Perry Dean Harder.
Harder's decomposed body was found in a shallow grave near Brookside
Boulevard and Logan Avenue in September 1990. He had been shot
several times in the chest.
Driskell was sentenced to life
in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. He has consistently
protested his innocence.
Driskell's case languished
for much of the last 12 years until it was taken up by the Association
in Defense of the Wrongly Convicted.
At a news conference yesterday,
Driskell was flanked by some of the association's foremost advocates,
including Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, who spent 22 years
in a New Jersey prison for a murder he did not commit, and Joyce
Milgaard, the crusading mother who helped free her son David
after 23 years in jail wrongly convicted of murder.
"Jim Driskell did not
commit a crime," said the flamboyant Carter, now a Canadian
citizen. "The crime was actually committed against Jim Driskell."
Driskell's case is also slated
to be reinvestigated by Centurion Ministries, the New Jersey-based
organization that freed David Milgaard. The foremost group fighting
for the wrongly convicted in North America, Centurion Ministries
has exonerated 26 life and death-row prisoners.
"This is a case of complete
factual innocence," said Jim McCloskey, Centurion's executive
director.
Driskell said he is overwhelmed
by the support he is getting from AIDWYC and others, although
he is still prepared for a lengthy battle to prove his innocence.
"I did not kill Perry,
I want to make that very clear," Driskell said.
Driskell is taking comfort
from the fact that evidence used to convict him is falling apart.
DNA tests, paid for by the province, have already eliminated
three hair strands that formed a critical part of the Crown's
case against Driskell.
Hairs were found in a van that
police informants testified was used in the murder. An RCMP expert
testified the hairs belonged to Harder, but the DNA tests showed
that to be untrue. In fact, not only were the three hair strands
not Harder's, they were not from the same person.
Although Mackintosh said he
found the DNA results "unsettling," a committee of
prosecutors from his department determined the exclusion of the
hairs would not have altered the jury's verdict.
New facts
However, a Free Press investigation
uncovered a number of new facts that have raised additional doubts
about Driskell's conviction.
The new facts include evidence
that police were aware that a key witness tried to recant his
testimony, and that the Crown paid out more than $60,000 to compensate
and relocate two star witnesses.
The jury at Driskell's trial,
which deliberated for 28 hours before returning a guilty verdict,
never heard about the compensation deals that had been arranged
for two witnesses.
Driskell's legal team is also
lobbying Mackintosh to compel the Winnipeg Police Service to
release a 1993 review of the case, which appears to contain new
evidence. Winnipeg Police Chief Jack Ewatski, one of the co-authors
of the report, has so far refused to relinquish the report and
disputes the suggestion any new evidence was uncovered.
Ewatski said he will co-operate
fully with a Sec. 696 review. However, short of a court order,
he will not voluntarily provide the 175-page report to Driskell's
legal team.
"It's not appropriate,
and there's no need to step outside that (Sec. 696) process at
this time," Ewatski said.
It appears that more DNA tests
will be done on evidence from Driskell's case. The Manitoba Justice
Department is now prepared to do a complete audit of all physical
evidence collected from the original investigation to determine
if there are any other items that can be tested for DNA, the
minister's spokesman confirmed.
Lockyer said there are several
other items from the original murder investigation -- including
cigar and cigarette butts found near Harder's gravesite -- which
he believes could be tested for DNA. Although none of the items
would clearly exonerate Driskell, they could further weaken the
case against him if his DNA is not found on them.
dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca
Police withholding evidence:
lawyers: Could trigger new trial for Driskell
Sunday, March 16th, 2003,
By Dan Lett
The Winnipeg Police Service
is withholding the results of an internal review of the 1991
James Driskell murder case, including "fresh and material
evidence" that could trigger a new trial, lawyers for the
Association in Defense of the Wrongly Convicted have charged.
Toronto lawyer James Lockyer,
who is representing Driskell in his bid for a new trial, said
he has asked Attorney General Gord Mackintosh to compel Winnipeg
police to release the review's findings.
Lockyer said that if Mackintosh
refuses to help obtain the report, he is prepared to take police
to court to seek its release.
"As far as I'm concerned,
they have no choice but to give us the report," said Lockyer.
"We know that it has fresh and material evidence and we
must have that to properly review Mr. Driskell's case. If they
won't do the right thing, I've told them our alternative is to
apply to the courts for the release of the report."
Winnipeg police Chief Jack
Ewatski has consistently refused to release the results of the
review, launched in 1993 in response to media reports questioning
Driskell's guilt in the 1991 slaying of Perry Dean Harder.
In fact, all Ewatski will say
about the report is that it did not uncover any evidence "which
would lead us to believe James Driskell was not involved in the
death of Perry Dean Harder."
However, in a January 2001
interview with the Free Press , Ewatski revealed a number
of new facts uncovered in the review that have never before been
disclosed.
These new facts include:
* Confirmation that Winnipeg
police had evidence a key Crown witness, Ray Zanidean, tried
to recant his testimony. Despite this knowledge, police failed
to re-interview Zanidean during the internal review;
* The conclusion of investigators
conducting the review that despite his statements to the contrary,
Zanidean's main motivation for testifying against Driskell was
financial gain. In fact, Zanidean would be the beneficiary of
tens of thousands of dollars in relocation expenses;
* The existence of a taped
statement by an inmate at Stony Mountain penitentiary, who contacted
the RCMP and alleged that a Winnipeg police officer was involved
in the murder. To date, Ewatski has refused to identify the informant
or the officer.
The review was launched at
the request of then-chief Dale Henry in March 1993 following
a series of media reports that questioned Driskell's guilt. Ewatski,
one of the authors of the 175-page report, said the review was
classified as an internal investigation and was never intended
to be released to the public.
Harder's body was found in
a shallow grave near railway tracks east of Brookside Boulevard
in September 1990. Police alleged that Harder was killed because
he implicated Driskell in a series of break-and-enters.
Perhaps the most surprising
revelation in the 1993 police review is that police found clear
evidence that Zanidean tried to recant his testimony.
On June 20, 1991 -- a week
after the trial concluded -- Driskell's lawyer, Greg Brodsky,
received an anonymous phone call from a man claiming a key witness
lied because he had been threatened by police. The caller said
police coached the witness on what to say in written statements
and while on the witness stand.
Brodsky said he always suspected
the call came from Zanidean, but he was unable to confirm that.
He never heard from the male caller again.
Unbeknownst to Brodsky or Driskell,
Winnipeg police uncovered the identity of the caller during their
1993 review. Ewatski confirmed that on the day Brodsky received
the anonymous call, Zanidean was still in protective custody
in a Winnipeg hotel. A search of the hotel bill for that day
uncovered a phone call from Zanidean's room to Brodsky's office,
minutes after police decided to discontinue protective custody.
On the basis of that information,
Ewatski said he tried to contact Zanidean about the phone call,
but Zanidean refused to be interviewed. The police review did
not have the power to compel any witness to talk.
"There were a number of
questions that we would have loved to ask Mr. Zanidean,"
Ewatski said. "Obviously, the phone call would have been
one of them. We wanted to hear from him but he never gave us
that opportunity to ask him those questions. That still leaves
a bit of a hole, doesn't it?"
Ewatski has also been particularly
reluctant to discuss the relocation deals provided for the two
police informants whose testimony was the key evidence against
Driskell.
The jury at Driskell's trial
heard few details of what the Crown offered Zanidean and fellow
key witness John Gumieny, a convicted rapist. Zanidean was asked
by Driskell's lawyer about a relocation deal, but Zanidean denied
he was being paid anything more than money for a room and just
under $50 a day for meals.
In a subsequent interview,
Ewatski was adamant that while police did provide protective
custody, the witnesses were not provided with any assistance
with relocation.
As for Zanidean, Ewatski said
he was a demanding witness who was sent on his way after the
trial without any help from authorities. "It was a mutual
decision of Mr. Zanidean and authorities that he would get on
with his life without the formal involvement of justice officials,"
Ewatski said.
However, a Free Press investigation
subsequently revealed that Zanidean received tens of thousands
of dollars to cover rent for a safe house, hotel bills, meals,
and moving expenses prior to the trial.
Zanidean, a convicted thief
and self-admitted arsonist, received an elaborate deal in which
police watched over him for more than six months, paid his legal
fees and even covered mortgage payments that were in arrears.
The big payoff came after the trial, when the Crown gave him
a $20,000 lump-sum payment to assist him in starting a new life.
Revelations about Zanidean's
attempt to recant and the refusal of police to divulge what they
know about witness compensation, are the latest in a series of
revelations about the apparent weakness of the case against Driskell.
In December 2002, DNA test
results eliminated a key piece of evidence used at Driskell's
trial. Hairs found in a van once owned by Driskell, which was
allegedly involved in the murder, were originally matched with
hairs from Harder's body by an RCMP hair and fibre expert.
Lockyer said although there
is no specific precedent to address this situation, Canada's
highest courts have consistently supported the efforts of lawyers
seeking disclosure of police and prosecution records for post-conviction
review.
The Manitoba Justice Department
has already agreed to release all of its records to Driskell's
lawyers. However, deputy justice minister Bruce McFarlane said
department officials cannot provide a copy of the Winnipeg police
review because they have not seen it.
Mackintosh has not yet formally
responded to Lockyer's request to compel Winnipeg police to release
their report.
dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca
© 2003 Winnipeg Free Press. All Rights Reserved.
Winnipeg Free Press Editorial
- New trial warranted
Monday, March 17th, 2003
MANITOBA Justice Minister Gord
Mackintosh should become actively involved in ensuring that James
Patrick Driskell was not a victim of a miscarriage of justice
when he was convicted of murder 12 years ago. Mr. Mackintosh
should begin by ordering Winnipeg Police Chief Jack Ewatski to
release a 175-page review of the prosecution that Mr. Ewatski
himself conducted in 1993. Mr. Mackintosh should also make common
cause with Driskell's lawyers in petitioning the federal justice
minister to review the conviction for the purpose of ordering
a new trial.
Driskell was convicted in 1991
of the shooting death of Perry Dean Harder, a thief with whom
he was involved in a chop shop operation. Driskell and Harder
were jointly charged with possession of stolen property. Five
days before the preliminary hearing into those charges was to
begin, Harder disappeared. His badly decomposed body was discovered
nine months later in a shallow grave. He had been shot three
times in the chest. Driskell was subsequently charged and convicted
of the killing. It was argued that Driskell killed Harder to
prevent Harder from giving testimony that would have been damaging
to Driskell.
As a motive, killing Harder
to shut him up was always weak. Evidence showed Harder was prepared
to accept a plea bargain that would have prevented him from testifying
against Driskell, and Driskell knew it. Nevertheless, Driskell
was convicted largely on the testimony of two informants, both
of whom gained from their actions. One of the informants was
paid a lump sum of $20,000 at the conclusion of the trial, in
addition to myriad other payments for the necessities of life
while he was under a witness protection program. The same informant
had admitted under oath to setting fire to a house in Saskatchewan,
the investigation of which was never concluded and no charges
were laid despite the admission to arson. The jury was not aware
of the advantages the informants obtained in return for their
testimony.
Another key piece of evidence
at the time has since been discredited. Three strands of hair
found in a van belonging to Driskell, a van that was purported
to have been used to remove Harder's body to the place of the
shallow grave, were said to have been identical to Harder's hair.
DNA tests of the hair, conducted in Britain last year at a cost
to the province of $20,000, have established that the strands
could not have been Harder's hair.
That the jurors, who deliberated
28 hours before reaching a verdict, were not aware that witnesses
at the trial might have been compromised by deals they were making
with police and the Crown, and that hair evidence (the only physical
evidence that even remotely linked Driskell to Harder's corpse)
was false, strongly suggest Driskell's intitial trial was a miscarriage
of justice.
But there is more. The review
undertaken by Mr. Ewatski in 1993 was ordered after the media
sensationally reported that the RCMP had been informed of allegations
that Driskell was innocent and that it was a member of the Winnipeg
Police Department who had killed Harder. In addition, Mr. Ewatski's
review uncovered evidence to the effect that one of the informants
had tried to renounce his testimony after the trial, claiming
that he had been coerced by police into giving false testimony.
Mr. Ewatski refuses to release
his 10-year-old report. That he both wrote the report as an investigator
and that he now refuses to release it as chief of police appears
to be a clear conflict of interest for Mr. Ewatski. Mr. Macintosh
should dispel any hint of conflict by ordering Mr. Ewatski to
release the report so that lawyers representing Driskell can
see whether it contains information helpful to an appeal for
a new trial.
Mr. Macintosh should also order
the release of the report in order to dispel any suspicion that
the original and subsequent investigations of Harder's slaying
were in no way tainted. Long memories and the Curry report on
the wrongful prosecution of Thomas Sophonow both remind us that
the era in which Driskell was convicted was not an era in which
police methods could be said to have been the best. Tunnel vision,
which occurs when investigators become convinced of a suspect's
guilt and focus on only those facts that support the prejudice,
and the use of questionable testimony from informants, were common
at the time. It must also be remembered that department was recovering
from the conviction of two officers in the killing of a snitch
and had been under fire for questionable sting operations aimed
at catching thieves. That time too was the era of the speedy
exoneration of the police officer who shot J.J. Harper.
But mostly Mr. Macintosh should
accept that it is possible that Driskell is a victim of a miscarraige
of justice and appeal to his federal counterpart to review the
case with an eye to a new trial. He has said that he believes
a new trial is not necessary, that he is convinced a jury would
come to the conclusion that Driskell is guilty without misleading
evidence to the effect that Harder's hair was found in Driskell's
van. But he cannot know that, and if he cannot know it, how then
can he conclude it?
As Allan Lidman, one of Driskell's
lawyers, said yesterday, "I am not convinced that he is
factually innocent, but I believe without doubt he is a victim
of a miscarriage of justice."
'Hurricane' Carter joins
fight to free inmate
Monday, March 17th, 2003.
Canadian Press
RUBIN "Hurricane"
Carter -- the boxer who served 20 years in a New Jersey penitentiary
for a murder he didn't commit -- will visit a Manitoba prison
today to demand a new trial for convicted murderer James Driskell.
Carter, whose struggle was
immortalized in a Bob Dylan song called Hurricane, and a Hollywood
movie The Hurricane, is now the executive director of the Association
in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted. He will host a press conference
this morning at the Rockwood Institution, Driskell's home since
his 1991 conviction for the murder of his friend, Perry Dean
Harder.
As recounted in a Free Press
investigation published recently, DNA testing has cast doubts
on a key piece of evidence linking Driskell to Harder's murder.
At Driskell's trial, forensic
experts testified that three hairs found in Driskell's old van
matched Harder's. The van was believed to have been used in the
murder.
DNA testing suggests the hairs
found in the van came from three separate people -- none of them
Harder.
Carter and the association
are asking that Driskell's conviction be quashed and new trial
ordered.
Also on hand at today's press
conference will be Joyce Milgaard, who fought for two decades
to free her son David from a Saskatchewan prison, where he was
incarcerated for a murder he did not commit.
Alan Libman, an association
director based in Manitoba, said the group's short term goal
is to get more evidence disclosed from the Crown in order to
determine Driskell's factual innocence. And, the group is asking
for the release of a review of the case done by Winnipeg Police
in 1993. The report has never been made public.
Who killed Perry Harder?
Friday,
March 14, 2003, Global TV
James Patrick
Driskell
Host: Danielle Smith
Guests: Jim Driskell; Alan Libman; Dan Lett, Winnipeg
Free Press; Jim McCloskey, Centurion Ministries; Hersch Wolch,
former Milgaard defence lawyer
Danielle Smith: Good evening everyone. I'm Danielle
Smith in Calgary. Welcome to Global Sunday the forum for the
issues and topics that matter most to Canadians.
Tonight, in a country where
Karla Homolka spends twelve years in prison for her role in the
deaths of three teenage girls and Inderjit Singh Reyat, gets
five years for helping to murder 329 people, it's no wonder Canadians
are losing faith in the justice system.
You are about to meet James
Patrick Driskell, convicted of murdering just one person, Driskell
received a mandatory life sentence, twenty-five years. He has
always denied killing his friend Perry Dean Harder. He may be
innocent. He may be guilty. We don't know. What we do know is
that he is thirteen years into his sentence and there is new
evidence suggesting he did not receive a fair trial. It also
appears our justice system has learned little from the wrongful
convictions of David Milgaard, Thomas Sophonow and Guy Paul Morin.
Eva Kovacs of Global Winnipeg explains.
Jim Driskell: My faith and trust in the justice system
has withered away over the years.
Eva Kovacs: Jim Driskell has been in prison for
more than a decade, serving a life sentence for first degree
murder. He's already spent nearly thirteen years behind bars
and faces at least twelve more for a crime he has always said
he did not commit.
March 10, 1994
[Unknown Male]: Did you kill Perry?
Jim Driskell: No. I did not kill Perry. I have said
it time and time again and I'll keep on saying it.
Kovacs: And to this day Driskell maintains
his innocence.
Driskell: Perry was a friend of mine and I wouldn't
kill anybody let alone a friend.
Kovacs: In September of 1990 the badly decomposed
body of twenty-nine year old Perry Harder was discovered in this
grassy field near the edge of Winnipeg. Harder was shot several
times with a 22-calibre gun and his remains were found half buried
in a shallow grave.
Winnipeg Police Spokesperson:
Oct. 1, 1990: Basically
the body consists of skeletal remains.
Kovacs: The police investigation revealed Harder's
body had been disposed of three months earlier and Jim Driskell
was charged with his murder. Police say Driskell had a strong
motive he and Harder had both been charged in connection with
a series of break-and-enters after police raided a former chop
shop at this garage back in 1989. Driskell said he had nothing
to do with the criminal activity. But according to police Harder
named him as an accomplice. Coincidently a week before Harder
was to appear in court on those charges, he vanished. In less
than a year later a jury sentenced Driskell to life in prison.
Driskell's Sister: There's no justice. It's not fair.
He's not guilty. And I know that. Everybody knows that.
Kovacs: The first-degree murder conviction
stunned Driskell and his family.
Driskell: It's like you get hit in the head with
a baseball bat or a cinder block you know. It's a total shock
because you just can't believe it that something like this has
actually happened. In this day and age you know where everything's
supposed to be fair, it just wasn't.
Alan Libman: The evidence presented at his trial
was wrong.
Kovacs: Alan Libman has been researching Driskell's
case for more than three years. He's part of a group of lawyers
dedicated to helping the wrongfully convicted. AIDWYC, The Association
In Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted has worked on high profile
cases involving Thomas Sophonow, David Milgaard and Guy Paul
Morin.
Alan Libman: We're pursuing the truth to determine
if Mr. Driskell's factually innocent. Right now we believe he's
a victim of miscarriage of justice because of evidence that we've
uncovered in the last several years.
Kovacs: Results from a recent DNA test have
left a fracture in the Crown's case against Driskell. At the
time of his trial in 1991, there was no DNA testing. Instead
RCMP used a less sophisticated method, which linked the hair
on Harder's head with three hairs found in Driskell's van. A
vehicle two Crown witnesses said could have been involved in
the murder.
Libman: They talked about Jim Driskell saying
he was going to kill Perry Harder and he was going to use his
van to transport the body. But we now know that those hairs do
not match. That is something we think the jury should have known,
something that would have affected the verdict.
Kovacs: Even with DNA evidence proving the
hairs came from three different unknown individuals, not from
Harder, Libman is still digging for more details to determine
whether Driskell is innocent and if he's entitled to a new trial
and that has left Driskell with a renewed sense of hope, hope
that he might leave these prison walls for good.
Driskell: I'm the one that's fighting for my
life and it's going to be a fight you know and I ain't given
up on it because I did not kill Perry.
Kovacs: For Global Sunday, I'm Eva Kovacs.
Smith: Thank you Eva. So has our justice system
learned from past mistakes? Is Jim Driskell the next David Milgaard?
He's our panel: In Winnipeg, Jim McCloskey, Executive Director
of the New Jersey based Centurion Ministries. Thanks for being
with us Jim.
Jim McCloskey: Thank you. Good to be here Danielle.
Smith: With Jim is Dan Lett, Senior Reporter
for the Winnipeg Free Press. Welcome to Global Sunday Dan.
Dan Lett: Thank you.
Smith: And with me in Calgary Hersch Wolch,
lead defence lawyer in the David Milgaard case. Hello Hersch.
Hersch Wolch: Hello Danielle.
Smith: Dan, we'll start with you on Friday
you reported that the Manitoba government was going to launch
a review process in part because of the Driskell case, is that
going to help Jim Driskell out?
Dan Lett: I don't think that the....there's an
immediate implication for Mr. Driskell...they did test hairs
used in his case. The DNA test excluded that as evidence and
now there's a fairly important difference of opinion about how
important that evidence was to the original trial. I think the
fact that they...the government is willing to test hairs in a
wide variety of other criminal cases is an intriguing strategy
by the provincial government and it's one that we're still trying
to really figure out.
Smith: Jim, can you comment on this, if you
test and you find evidence that the physical evidence should
be thrown out but then you don't have it retrialed, what value
is the review process?
Jim McCloskey: Well first of all the hair evidence
in our view was extremely important evidence against Jim Driskell
because what it did, it corroborated the testimony of the two
star witnesses against him, both career criminals who the jury
could have been very sceptical about because their stories to
the jury, the victim was put in Driskell's van as part of the
plot to kill him and that hair evidence corroborated the story.
So if you're a jury member you would...if there was any dispute
about the credibility of these two witnesses, it would be backed
up by the scientific evidence, and now it turns out that was
wrong so that was very important.
Smith: Right. Hersch, what do you think, is
this review process just window dressing?
Hersch Wolch: Well it depends what it comes to in
the end but my main complaint with this case and all others is
the time delays that no matter how strong a case appears, and
this one appears very strong for something to be done, the time
just seems to drift by year after year in...if you look at the
cases where there's been exonerations...numbers like five, six,
seven years is not unusual. My biggest fear is not so much that
Driskell might eventually be cleared, but when...
Smith: Right
Wolch: ...is what I'm concerned about.
Smith: Jim, you have worked with Centurion
Ministries and helped to free 26 people on death row charges,
what do you find about this case that's similar to what you've
dealt with in the United States?
McCloskey: Uh, I've also worked with the David
Milgaard case, with Hersch as well and what we see in this case,
it has the common earmarks of wrongful conviction is that it's
pretty apparent that the police had conducted their investigation
with what we call a telescopic focus on a star suspect, this
case Jim Driskell and what they do is their...in conducting their
quick and ferocious investigation and interviewing of witnesses,
they're very derisive and even dismissive of evidence that emerges
that goes to the innocence of the suspect and what they do is
they try and through coheresive tactics or offering unusual favours
to these common criminals who are their star witnesses, they
get people to say what they want to say in order to secure their
conviction.
Smith: Right, but Dan isn't it the case that
Jim Driskell had been in trouble with the law before? Wouldn't
it have made him an obvious suspect?
Lett: Um I think uh based on what Jim just said, he
was in fact an obvious suspect. But I think the problem is that
the methodology of a lot of police investigations and this is
a very good example, um, do not at any time try to disprove their
own theory. They develop a theory very early on and merely look
for the evidence that supports that. And I think, as been the
case in almost every wrongful conviction I've written about.
They dismiss evidence that might weaken their case. They hide
it from time to time and overall they put pressure on everybody
involved to support the original theory. In this particular case,
we made the point in one of our stories that the moment he was
picked up first for questioning, they decided that he was guilty...
Smith: Right.
Lett: ...at that point and that's not...that's not
a good way to approach it.
Smith: Right, but Hersch, doesn't every criminal...every
inmate say they're innocent?...
Wolch: No....
Smith: ...What makes this guy different?
Wolch: Many don't say they're innocent...
Smith: Okay.
Wolch: ...and...and not that many maintain
innocence over many many years. The fact is many are innocent
and we know of many who've been wrongly convicted
Smith: How common is it?
Wolch: Well, Jim can tell better than I, but
very common it's... and if I may just have one point...
McCloskey: Sure.
Wolch: ...The word that we'd use is tunnel
vision. It's a tunnel vision where the police have a suspect
in mind and they're totally focused on that person and their
theory becomes reality when people who aren't that strong or
aren't that honest or are manipulated into given them what they
want.
Smith: Right, Jim, quickly, how common is
this?
McCloskey: And in the United States it's far more
common then people expect. I liken it to wrongful conviction
in the U.S. is about as rare as a pigeon in the park. There are
many such folks languishing in prisons today with their cries
of innocence falling on cynical...cynical minds.
Smith: Alright, we'll take a quick break now.
We'll be back to discuss the details of the Driskell case. Canada's
number one current affairs talk show Global Sunday continues
in two minutes.
****************************
To obtain a complete transcript
of this show - please contact Infomart for pricing and availability.
Cynthia Benaicha: (416) 350-6022 (9:00am - 5:00pm
ET)
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell
