It is difficult to support an underdog when you are an underdog. Do it anyways. Like a ripple in the water, your voice will disturb the calm before the storm, and one day, the tide will rise to the point where every miscarriage of justice enabler will be as loathed as Harvey Weinstein is today.
Justice never sleeps. It merely picks up where the ripple left off.
Some underdogs are more equal than others. For example, lawyer Michael Lomer (1951-2010) was a passionate defender of underdogs. It was his sense of justice that drove him to become a criminal lawyer. However, the stress of justice denied drove him from the profession.
In 1994, Lomer took on the appeal of William Mullins-Johnson and soon realized the evidence against his client did not add up.
William Mullins-Johnson served 12 years in prison for strangling and raping his 4 year old niece even though she died of natural causes. Read that again. It is all true. The man was convicted of a truly horrific crime which never took place; can it possibly get any stranger than that?
In 1996, Lomer managed to persuade one member of a three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal that Mullins-Johnsonís first-degree murder conviction should be set aside, for reasons unrelated to the pathology evidence. The majority upheld his conviction.
Michael Lomer was personally horrified that William Mullins-Johnson's appeals were dismissed by both the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada and that should still disturb every Canadian who is concerned about the quality of justice in Canada.
It was the theory of the Crown that the accused killed the deceased in the course of sexually assaulting her. Legend has it that pathologist, Dr. Stuart Smith is exclusively responsible for making a total mockery of the judicial process, in that case. The truth is, Canadian authorities made Dr. Stuart Smith their scapegoat, to evade liability. If you actually think that Dr. Stuart Smith is responsible for every miscarriage of justice in Canada, we have then produced our very own, Lee Harvey Oswald -a scapegoat that explains away every failure of our 'infallible' and 'allegedly superior' judicial proces. Dream on...
There is nothing new or mysterious about deliberately misdiagnosing cause of death to assist or to discredit (in the case of a successful cover up) a homicide investigation. It happens all the time, that should be acknowledged and it is simply silly to think that hired guns are exclusively responsible for miscarriage of justice in Canada.
Smith erred in at least 20 child-death investigations, 12 of which resulted in convictions. At least four of those convictions have since been quashed, including Mullins-Johnson's. Authorities use the same scapegoat to "win" in a court of law because they have proved to be "relaible" in the past, but that does not excuse the clockwork efficiency of any miscarriages of just ("fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me).
The delusion that Dr. Smith is responsible for every wrongful conviction in Canada might make incompetent and/or corrupt people sleep easy, but that will certainly change in time because their predictable, identifiable prejudices are always exposed one way or another.
The trail of devastation (ruined families) left by the once acclaimed forensic pathologist, Dr. Smith, is not unique. Hired guns are common "nutcases" (biased advocates) who should be exposed prior to trial, not when everybody who is responsible for a miscarriage of justice needs a scapegoat to deflect blame. Clearly, the judges, lawyers and prosecutors who use hired guns to corrupt the process are directly responsible for every miscarriage of justice and they are the ones who need to be held accountable. The crackpots they like to blame merely peddle the narratives they are handed.
The father of wrongful convictions that arise from unreliable expert testimony is the prosecution and the mother is judges who treat the crown like a God. There is never any mystery behind any miscarriage of justice. The crowd that empowered Dr. Charles Smith has the very same characteristics of every other crowd that repeats the same, and it is time to expose the malignancy of the cabals that are responsible for every miscarriage of justice in Canada.
At the trial of William Mullins-Johnson, there was conflicting expert evidence about how the deceased died and when she died, Smith merely advocated on behalf of the wrong side and that is not unusual. It is common practice.
The bizarre arrest and conviction of Canada's most famous, wronffully convicted, Guy Paul Morin, illustrates that hypothesis rather handsomely.
Guy Paul Morin was represented by Clayton Ruby, who is supposed to be one of the best lawyers in Canada but he ultimately sealed the fate of his own client when he challenged his mental stability for tactical reasons.
In court, in an effort to speak for rather than about his client (taking the easy way out) Clayton Ruby said, "You are listening to someone with a communication disorder and a thinking disorder." The lawyer sounded like he represented a guilty client who was trying to get away with murder, and the crown devoured the opportunity like a hungry cat.
To his credit, Clayton Ruby managed to convince the jury that Guy Paul Morin's original trial that he was not not guilty but when the Crown appealed, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial, and Morin was finally convicted. Unlike the United States, where double jeopardy rules prevent an accused person from being tried again on the same charges, the crown in Canada is not likewise restrained.
Guy Paul Morin was charged in 1984, convicted in 1992, and his case has the unique distinction of being the longest running murder trial in Canadian history. It is a "must review" study for every lawyer and judge because every aspect of that case was corrupted so completely, it provides the clearest wake up call for those who like to think that Canada's judicial process is practically infallible.
In truth, Guy Paul Morin should have never been arrested in the first place and given the fact that it entails the most bizarre persecution in Canadian history, on November 1, 1990 I sent defence lawyer Clayton Ruby the following letter and it speaks for itself:
Dear Mr. Ruby:
My letter was predictably ignored, as were the prescient letters Michael Lomer sent to plead the innocence of William Mullins-Johnson.
Defence lawyer, Clayton Ruby had used a hired gun to advance the claim that Guy Paul Morin was inclined to do the unthinkable and that was such a bizarre theory, it even made disgraced pathologist, Dr. Stuart Smith, appear to be competent in comparison.
According to Thomas Stephen Szasz, psychiatrist and academic who has been Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New York Health Science Center since 1990; "Psychiatric diagnoses are stigmatizing labels phrased to resemble medical diagnoses and applied to people whose behavior annoys or offends others."
That is the only reason Guy Paul Morin was ultimately convicted, he was stigmatized by his own lawyer, and I say that, not to blame one of the best, but to expose this ugly, uphill battle which made Clayton Ruby's actions a respectable, honourable endeavor.
The flaws that the Morin fiasco exposed, persist. When William Mullins-Johnson was finally exonerated, the Province of Ontario promised "to prevent miscarriages of justice but also to take allegations of miscarriages of justice extremely seriously." That promise has been broken and miscarriages of justice are not only ignored, they still raise their ugly heads like predictable clockwork.
As long as Harvey Weinstein enablers enable Harvey Weinstein, the entire judicial process in Canada is in denial, and that is a bilateral metaphor because there is a striking resemblance between miscarriages of justice on both sides of the border.
An analysis of Academy Award acceptance speeches from 1966 to 2016 found that like God, Harvey Weinstein had been thanked or praised in 34 speeches.
The acknowledgement of his conduct precipitated a wave of national reckoning against sexual harassment and assault known as the Weinstein effect.
Hollywood has an ugly side, everybody knew it but nobody dared to rock the boat. The judicial process has an ugly side, it is equally disturbing and it needs to be recognized and opposed. In essence, we need a wave of condemnation against anybody who enables miscarriages of justice in Canada because they are never excusable and they should never be tolerated.
In 2018, author, Kathryn Campbell wrote a book titled Miscarriages od Justice in Canada and the bottom line is: "Innocent people are regularly convicted of crimes they did not commit. A number of systemic factors have been found to contribute to wrongful convictions, including eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, informant testimony, official misconduct, and faulty forensic evidence."
Recently, Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau named Richard Wagner the new chief justice of Canada, and that may in fact be the best thing he has ever done, to facilitate the desperate need to expand access to justice in Canada.
A champion of an impartial and non-politicized judiciary, Chief Justice Wagner views the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a living, evolving document, and he possesses the wisdom and the intelligence required to be able to improve access to jusice in Canada.
Yesterday, I was granted the rare privillege of conversing with the chief justice of Canada. Here was my chance, I thought, to advocate on behalf of every single person who has ever been shafted by the judicial process. "In my opinion," I said to the most powerful man in Canada, "a miscarriage of justice is a mischaracterization which dictates the outcome of a legal proceeding. Do you accept that?"
"It depends on the context", Chief Justice Wagner replied.
"In any context", I retorted.
"Well, can you repeat your statement then?" the chief justice of Canada prudently asked.
"A mischarriage of justice is a mischaracterization which dictates the outcome of a legal proceeding," I slowly repeated.
"Yeah, that could be okay," he repeated twice.
I hope, from hereonin, that everybody demonstrates the courage to stand up for his or her rights, refuses to be mischaracterized in any way, shape or form and that we never, ever have to endure the futility of yet another meritorious appeal that is characteristically denied.
Next: Meet the new breed of citizen journalists.
What made this person such a special celebrity?