28 September 2010

To serve and...

...what the f@ckin' f@ck!!!

-- SAULT STE. MARIE, Ont. -- Ten people nabbed last summer in a drug sweep in this northern Ontario city walked free Monday on the first day of what was to be a two-week trial.

Judge Andrew Buttazzoni dismissed trafficking charges against the nine men and one woman after he refused to grant the Crown an adjournment., requested because an out-of-town undercover police officer wasn't available to testify because he's getting married.
And is Hogtown any better?
The mother of Bailey Zaveda rushed from court Monday, overcome with emotion as an eyewitness described discovering her daughter wounded after being shot outside the Duke of York tavern.

Helen Deir was listening to Derek Hall recall the hail of bullets that killed the 23-year-old Zaveda on Oct. 25, 2008. Zaveda was re-entering the Queen St. E. bar in front of Hall when she was killed.

Hall said he felt so threatened by the shooting and events afterward that he fled Toronto. He moved to a city three hours away, leaving behind his girlfriend and a good job, because he feared reprisals for speaking to police.
Only in Canada, you say?

**********

UPDATE: In other "crime is falling" news
-- OTTAWA -- More than one-quarter of Canadians over the age of 15 have been victims of crime, according to a new report from Statistics Canada.

According the 2009 General Social Survey, 27 per cent of Canadians aged 15 and over reported being victimized by crime in the previous 12 months, the federal agency reported Tuesday.

About six per cent of the population at least 15 years of age — or about 1.6 million people — reported being subjected to violent crime.

Victim rates also varied among specific groups in the country, the report said, noting that Aboriginal residents were twice as likely to report being victimized than non-Aboriginal Canadians.
**********

LAST WORD: Yeah... I'm shocked
A judge has granted bail to one off the three Ontario suspects charged with terrorism offences during last month's RCMP busts.


6 comments:

Chris said...

The first story is confusing. The charges were laid in the summer 2009 and the trial was not scheduled until the fall of 2010? That seems like a long time.

I took a look at the remainder of the story and it seems as though the crown either did not (or could not) get its ducks in a row and it seemed like they had asked for adjounments a number of times.

Sometimes these things are accidental and sometimes they are indicative that the crown just doesn't have a strong case 'yet'.

Who knows.

But the good people at the Department of Justice are the ones who dropped the ball here. I have no idea what the trial docket looked like but if the last adjournment (feb 2010) was scheduled in Oct 2010, then they were likely not going to get this trial started until the spring/summer of 2011.... that is getting close to 2 years.

Ouch

Neo Conservative said...

*
i guess the real problem here, chris... is that we merely have a legal system... not... as one might hope... a justice system.

and, no... it's not as fine a distinction as one might think.

a justice system would, for example, place robert "willie" pickton's head on a pike... and send it around the country where citizens of all stripes could spit on it.

a legal system gives him free room & board for the rest of his life.

*

Chris said...

Yeah - but by the time it got to the Atlantic provinces, it would be pretty smelly.

That aside...

Generally speaking, it isn't "justice" or "legal" to let the government adjourn a trial over and over. Who knows the reasons behind the first adjournment(s?) but judges get pretty animated when the crown asks for adjournments for 'personal' reasons. As well, this was on the eve of trial. I guess the judge thought 'enough is enough'.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"chris says... I guess the judge thought 'enough is enough'."

i get that.

if the system is flawed... and by gawd, is it flawed... let's fix that.

*

Chris said...

Not sure I see the segue to the Picton trial but ok...

I got this from the article:

"The charges were stayed on Jan. 27, 1998 and wiped off the books a year later. Mr. Ritchie, the defence lawyer, told the court that Crown counsel Randi Connor had indicated to police the case did not proceed because the woman was using drugs at the time of the trial and was not in good enough shape to testify."

No credible witness then no conviction. Besides, its next to impossible to get a conviction for attempted murder. So the police did the next best thing:

"His clothing, however, remained with the police. Police working on the Pickton case sent it for DNA testing in June, 2004. DNA of missing woman Andrea Borhaven was found on the rubber boots; DNA of Cara Ellis, another missing woman, was on the nylon jacket."

and

"But the evidence was too important to the case to keep it away from the jury"

Your point is made; it may not have been the most effective use of the original evidence, for sure. But at least it did not go to waste.

The other thing to consider is the 20/20 hindsight aspect of this case and I have no idea about this point but at what point did the police know they were dealing with a serial killer? Were they investigating these missing people as individual files or did they turn their minds to a horrific killer early in the investigation? Tough to make that "we have a serial killer" call early on and it seems so obvious well after the fact.

I have no idea on the specifics of the investigation, I just didn't follow it.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"chris asks... Were they investigating these missing people as individual files"

the part that's driving most people over the edge... is that the cops didn't even figure out that women were going missing until way too late in the game.

the victims were, for the most part, women who had marginalised themselves... ie. crackhead hookers.

cops in east van are buried under the mountain of criminality... and the families probably didn't keep tabs on these women either.

pickton obviously knew that & exploited it.

*