The Port Hope 8

<p style="margin-left:30px"><img border="0" src="images/mprm_white.gif" alt="MPRM Group Limited, incorporated since 1986" width="300" height="75" /><br /> <b><a name="top"></a></b><span class="c1">Case History CASE FILE CS110991</span></p> <h3>Wrongly accused. Wrongly convicted.</h3> <h4>Regina vs McLeod et al, 1979</h4> <p>See also <a href="commentary1.htm"><span class="c3">Regina vs. McLeod et al in the context of Regina vs. Starr</span></a></p> <div class="c8"> <table border="1" cellspacing="1"> <tr> <td width="100%" colspan="3"><i class="c5">Table of contents</i> <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mobrien.com%2Fporthope8.html"> <img border="0" src="http://mobrien.com/images/valid-xhtml10.gif" alt="Valid XHTML 1!" height="25" width="72" align="right" /> </a></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="28%" rowspan="5"><b>Welcome</b>. To the left there should be an index frame. If not <a href="research_series.html" target="_top">click here</a>. If you require assistance don't be too shy to ask<a href="e-me.html">here</a>. Drop by our new <a href="message_board.shtml">Message Board</a> and leave a note, ask the world a question or just browse.</td> <td><a href="#1">Forward</a></td> <td><a href="#5">Corrupted Witnesses</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href="#2" target="_self">The Shooting Of Bill Matiyek</a></td> <td><a href="#7">Crime Scene Tampering</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href="#9" target="_self">The Accused</a></td> <td><a href="#10">Perjury, withholding evidence</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href="#4">The Shooting Starts</a></td> <td><a href="#6">Guns: chain of possession</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href="#3">Investigation Result</a></td> <td><a href="#8">Evidence to quash the verdict</a></td> </tr> </table> </div> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c9"><a name="1"></a>Forward:</p> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c10">This is the synopsis of a many-years-after investigation into the famous killing of a Port Hope man.</p> <p class="c11">I expect you are reading this because you have a special interest in the matter and therefore are somewhat informed. If not, you should take the time to read the fairly detailed but short <a href="#2">account</a> of the October 18, 1979 death of Bill Matiyek before digging into the investigative report.</p> <p class="c11">If Bill Matiyek was murdered, it was not by any of the eight persons who were tried in the matter, six of whom were initially convicted and given life sentences.</p> <p class="c11">Matiyek's killer never faced trial.</p> <p class="c11">No court has ever adjudicated the real events of that night, so this is just our interpretation: Mr. William Matiyek was shot in defence of a third person. The man who shot Matiyek to death did so because it was told to him that the life of another was in immediate peril -- Matiyek apparently was about to shoot a man named Richard Sauve. The shooter confirmed for himself the imminent threat -- eyeballed the scene himself. Matiyek made an action to present his firearm to a shooting position -- he drew first. (This is supported by witness statements and by forensics. Read on.) And by extension, the only other (confirmed) armed person in the place shot Matiyek as a defensive act to save the life of Sauve. How the Court would deal with the real shooter of Mr. Matiyek is a matter of shear speculation. It will never happen.</p> <p class="c11">That is the summary effect of every statement taken from the witnesses, including the accused. (Note: the failure of the accused to give evidence at their own trial is paramount in the entire case; another very significant contributor to the miscarriage of justice. Certainly there's a time to shut-up but also there is a time to speak-up. This failure is one that any person who ever comes before the criminal justice system should take note of. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Commonwealth legal system provides the opportunity to speak in one's own defence. Frivolously discard that right at your own peril: a jury needs to hear the sincere denial of guilt to make an acquittal. A jury needs to hear you say you didn't do it and decide on your truthfulness weighed with the presented facts. The wrong-mindedness of the accused in this was not shared by their legal counsel in general. It was their own collaborative decision.)</p> <p class="c11">Our data comprises a dozen legal-size file boxes. After all this time, having failed over the years to mobilize a move to rectify the injustice of the case, we release that part of our information files which are easily convertible to internet format, in summary form. My personal notebook can be found <a href="secure/porthope8_notes.html">here</a>. I warn you that the file is nearly half a megabyte and there is no logical reason for parsing it. Further, it is password protected. If you have a good reason... drop me a note and I will email back the password. Click <a href="e-me.html">here</a> to apply. Ok?</p> <p class="c11">Larry's, Ted's and Jason's notes are paper records only.</p> <p class="c11">One of the most compelling and disheartening cases in my 20 years of sleuthing as a journalist and private detective is this matter of the Port Hope 8. We took on the investigation at the request of an acquaintance and one of the accused who (most sadly) passed away years ago now in a motorcycling accident. He died proud in the wind at the fork of a road. May he some day rest in peace.</p> <p class="c11">We spent six frustrating years on the matter. Interviewed over 200 witnesses, some repeatedly; traveled considerably; did dangerous undercover work; tolerated countless liars, some very crazy and some very dangerous people; penetrated the biker world; the cop world; the bar's scene; and Port Hope itself. There are a few hundred stories to tell. None belong here.</p> <p class="c11">When we first looked at the matter, the accused had already exhausted their appeals including an application to then Minister of Justice Kim Campbell (who saw no political currency in this) for a parliamentary hearing of the matter. All their efforts were rejected.</p> <p class="c11">Six of the eight accused men were convicted of murder. Six lifers, three of whom didn't even know there was a firearm in the building, let alone shoot someone; and one of whom was hundreds of miles away. Some of these men to this day don't know all of what happened that night, just heard a bang <i>per se</i>.</p> <p class="c11">The police investigation was incompetent and farcical. Two of the accused were acquitted after a year in prison awaiting trial. That's so hard to explain with reason. A third had his verdict fixed four and a half years later after pleading to accessory after the fact because he arranged 'medical attention' for the surviving shooting victim, Gary Comeau. (About the plea, what would you do given the choice between "go along with this crap or spend another 5.5 years in jail"?) Two of the three were nowhere near the bar nor the event's players that night. Five innocent persons became lifers.</p> <p class="c11">Two of the convicted persons are first degree murder convicts. Evidence of pre-meditation and planning of the event was fabricated by a conspiracy of police officers, one of whom contrived and cajoled testimonial evidence, and others who by either overt act or incompetence covered up exculpatory evidence. In so doing, at least two of these individuals later received compensation of a kind. The system failed miserably and the players within look like skunks under any scrutiny.</p> <p class="c11">There was no planning and deliberation for murder. Perhaps a hazing. For example, the telephone conversations between Richard Sauve from his home and Gary Comeau at the Toronto club house make it clear there was no pre-planning of a crime. Just happenstance. Comeau had even been reluctant to leave his comfortable roost that night.</p> <p class="c11">Certainly, at this time before the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms existed, there was an argument to be brought that there was criminal behaviour on the part of these individuals. In the thinking of the day, they should have reasonably known that a crime might be committed. With today's thinking, that is arcane practice.</p> <p class="c11">For all eight of the accused, there is no remedy, save perhaps that insulated central institution of dwindling significance, the Canadian Parliament which made the nation's Criminal Code and it's awkward set of capital crime laws in the first place and has the right and the responsibility to remedy misapplication.</p> <p class="c10"><span class="c12">The unmistakable horror of</span> <i class="c13">Regina vs. McLeod et al</i> <span class="c12">is that because of the accused' affiliations, they are lesser human beings being less worthy of their human rights as promised by the general principles of law of that day recognized by the community of nations; and certainly by the subsequent Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, i.e.: s. 11</span> "[<i>Any person charged with an offence has the right</i>] <span class="c12">(d)</span> <i>to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal</i>."</p> <p class="c10">This should mean that anyone accused of breaking the law is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.<br /> </p> <p class="c10">It should mean that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person(s) did commit the offence before he/she/they can be found guilty. The trial must also be conducted fairly before a court which is unbiased and independent of political or any other influence (s. 11(d)). (i.e.: No political imperatives should have been issued by Roy McMurtry, then Attorney General of Ontario, to get a major 'biker' conviction at any cost. Consider just how potent and outcome altering is this intervention by one of the politicians who appoints judges.) A fair trial should ensure that the rights of the accused are properly protected and that all persons accused before the Court are treated equally in fairness. This certainly did not happen. The defence, the prosecution, the judge, the politician(s) -- all being lawyers and principle players in the judicial process -- all share the blame. You can apportion it any way you want.</p> <p class="c10">Some convoluted argument suggests that the "Charter" didn't exist so then 'anything goes', but the reality remains as we know today that 'anything goes' was NOT the general principle of law recognized by the community of nations in the late 1970's but in fact to the contrary. The principles of law and the manner of society's thinking of that day spawned what we know as the <span class="c12">Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.</span></p> <p class="c10"><span class="c12">Regardless, the utmost significance of</span> <i class="c13">Regina vs. McLeod et al</i><span class="c12">is that the six persons sent to jail are categorically innocent of the crime they were convicted of doing.</span></p> <p class="c14"><a name="9"></a>The Accused</p> <ol style="margin-left:30px"> <li>Gary Comeau convicted of 1st degree murder Life/25</li> <li>Rick Sauve convicted of 1st degree murder Life/25</li> <li>Jeff McLeod convicted of 2nd degree murder/10 years</li> <li>Larry Hurren convicted of 2nd degree/10 years</li> <li>Armand Sanguigni found not guilty</li> <li>Gordon Van Harlem found not guilty</li> <li>(Murray) Merv Blaker convicted of 2nd degree/10 year</li> <li>David Hoffman "Tee Hee" convicted of 2nd degree/10 year, overturned and released after 4.5 years</li> </ol> <p><a href="#top">top</a></p> <p class="c11"><br /> </p> <p class="c14"><a name="2"></a>THE SHOOTING DEATH OF BILL MATIYEK:</p> <p><a href="#top">top</a><br /> Some time around 10:50 P.M. on October 18, 1978, the soon-to-be-deceased William (Bill) Matiyek sat at a small table in a bar gesturing one of his two loaded guns at a local kid named Richard Sauve while a hood from Toronto named Gary Comeau sat along side trying to talk Matiyek out of blowing them both away. As the three sat there in the bar/lounge of the Queen's Hotel in Port Hope, Ontario, others watched intently.</p> <p>Matiyek was drunk and stoned on pot and amphetamine drugs. He was also fuming from a long day of getting himself hopped up on hot conversation with the locals plus some heavy duty talk with visiting members of the Outlaw Motorcycle Club. His head was swollen.<br /> <br /> Owing to happenstance and the mischief of a certain Brian Brideau -- a local yuk Matiyek had pissed-off earlier in the day with his abusiveness -- these three characters sat together at The Queen's Hotel in Port Hope, Ontario. There was nothing inevitable about it: a tragic fluke. Matiyek, hot under the collar; Sauve scared; and Comeau a little more subdued than his usual bull-in-a-china-shop self.</p> <p>Matiyek had been in the bar all day, Comeau and Sauve had arrived along with associates from their motorcycle club (the Satan's Choice Motorcycle Club) which at one time in previous history, rivaled the club Matiyek claimed he belonged to, the Golden Hawks. (Most people at the time regarded the Golden Hawks as being disbanded. Regardless, none of these boys were very "golden".)</p> <p>There was a history of bad blood between them. Matiyek knew he was going to get hurt. He had confided to a gal pal (Helen Mitchell) earlier that day that he knew some of his recent rivalous actions had brought this on. He was plenty paranoid as many 'speed' abusers are. Very much pumped up.</p> <p>Meanwhile, in a series of lies, exaggerations, incompetence and mischief, the word that Sauve, Comeau and a dozen or so pals had got was that a huge ambush awaited them at the Queen's Hotel. The Queen's Hotel was always filled with Satan's Choice rivals. That was nothing new. But the story was that a) members of the hated Outlaws Motorcycle Club had joined forces with the (theretofore disbanded) Golden Hawks, b) they were present at the bar in hordes, and C) were about to set upon the homes and lives of local area Satan's Choice members, then and forever after. It was something along those lines.</p> <p>Sauve, a junior recruit of the Port Hope area Satan's Choice club got wind of all this from Brideau who gave the story some fairly illustrious twists. Sauve, now burdened with this allegedly red hot intelligence needed to unburden himself. He was just a junior guy and would be knee-deep if he didn't get this thing right. From his home, he called anybody and everybody he could get hold of.</p> <p>The sometimes gregarious Gary Comeau got wind of the alleged Outlaw/Hawk conspiracy while watching some TV at the Toronto clubhouse. Again happenstance, there was a large gaggle of club members present. So after a hard time getting anyone interested, Gary Comeau finally convinced enough people and gathered up a posse and headed for Port Hope. Tragically, Comeau must have been bored that night.</p> <p>Some of the Toronto group met Sauve at his home. Others proceeded to the bar. A few caucused at Sauve's place and then headed for the bar where they found no hordes of Outlaws but instead a fat, drunken Bill Matiyek and a couple of bewildered Outlaws doing their own thing.</p> <p>After paying courtesies to each other, and once the company at Matiyek's' table left, Sauve approached Matiyek joined him at a lone, small, round table to find out just what these 'messages' were all about. Matiyek got into it fast and did a shade more than tell Sauve he had a gun and was prepared to use it.</p> <p>Next, Comeau came bouncing along to see how the talks were progressing. It got worse from there.</p> <p>Well, that's how it came to pass that these folks with opposing interests, armed with gross misinformation, arrived at the Queen's Hotel that night.</p> <p>Not just Sauve and Comeau, but a certain Mr. Lorne Campbell, friend of Comeau and Sauve, also in the bar, knew Matiyek was armed. As a matter of foresight or malice, who knows, Campbell had already taken possession of a .38 calibre hand gun. (Holding 9mm re-loads done by a certain Bill Lavoie, the hand gun was the property of Gordon Van Harlem, a boarder at Sauve's place who was off gallivanting around Peterborough at the time he was unknowingly relieved by his landlord of his junky firearm. The gun, never found by police, is not far from the investigation scene where Campbell tossed it that night.)</p> <p><a href="#top">top</a>Comeau had wanted to carry the piece but Campbell reluctantly stepped in and said "no". A few others had insisted "no" to Comeau, a guy known to be a hot head. The job defaulted to Campbell who was the level-headed one and would be cool if things got out of hand. Cool enough to use lethal force if needed and avoid it if not needed. They were going to thump Matiyek and run the Outlaws out of Satan's Choice territory if that was needed. That was all.</p> <p>At around 11:00 P.M. that night, the armed Campbell was tipped off that things had gone seriously awry. A buddy told him a face-off was happening at the tense table in the dingy bar. His mates were being held at gun point he was told. Rick Sauve was about to lose his life to the angry, drunken Matiyek. Campbell says he believes one or both Sauve and Comeau were about to be killed by Matiyek. Campbell sent someone, or maybe that someone independently went over to the table to check it out. That person we spoke with confirmed that Matiyek was holding a gun on Sauve and Comeau. Someone else was again sent to the table to attempt to subdue the situation.</p> <p>Michael Everett was capable of using substantial physical force, but upon walking to the table and surveying the situation he made an abort decision and turned, swing to his left and without much fuss, indicated to Campbell he couldn't win. Campbell made a move. It was a cold autumn night. He pulled his toque over much of his face, straightened his coat as if about to leave, then marched directly toward the door he had entered by, passing the threesome sitting at the table.</p> <p>Campbell was at least the third person to come toward the table. A spooked Matiyek began to withdraw his weapon from its semi-concealed position in his left hand jacket pocket. He raised his arm, elbow even with his shoulder. His gun was tangled, snagged in the upper left lower breast jack-shirt pocket. He never fired a shot. From a position close to Matiyek and close to the exit door, Campbell, in an independent and spontaneous action shot three times toward Matiyek's head and quickly proceeded past the table and out the side door of the bar.</p> <p>Comeau was wounded in the chest-shoulder area from behind by the first shot which grazed Matiyek's raised arm and neck; Matiyek, who couldn't get his gun into position fast enough, was killed instantly by the second shot which pierced his skull and ricochet one inch back from the other side of his cranium. Meanwhile the kid Sauve was stunned and scared out of his mind.</p> <p>The place emptied save for a gaggle of Matiyek's local allies, foes and opportunists. Matiyek had been carrying hordes of dope. That was gathered up. So were his two firearms.</p> <p>A rough plan of action was formed by these witnesses who then hustled off to the home of the bar's head drink slinger and social centrepiece, Dave Hills.</p> <p>Next the local cops came on scene and from there the buffoonery of that night got worse. The crime scene was not secured and by the time the evidence man was called in, the place was a total forensic disaster.</p> <p>We learned that the body of the deceased was not accompanied by a police officer, nor was proper security provided for this evidence from the time the body of the deceased was transported by ambulance from The Queen's Hotel at 11:14 P.M. on October 18, 1978, to the time of an autopsy done in Peterborough by Dr. John Whiteside on October 19, 1978 at or about 10:00 A.M. The body was accessed by civilians, (not the least of which were Rod Stewart - a local big-mouth; Gilispie, Peart and Metro Matiyek who recovered the keys to his son's truck enabling him to proceed to the Walton and recover the vehicle from the rear parking lot around 2:30 A.M.) for the removal of pills, dope and guns, keys, and later surreptitiously accessed by certain police to replace one of the guns. Read on.<br /> <br /> No effort such as road blocks or other means were done on the night of October 18, 1978 to apprehend the killer.<br /> <br /> The Port Hope Police Department refused to notify proper authorities, namely the Criminal Investigation Branch of the Ontario Provincial Police, until the late morning of October 19, 1978, after an autopsy had begun, even though a certain police officer, namely O.P.P. Corporal Dennis Moore (who had been called in by a baffled local evidence man named Bill Wakely who was cursed with this forensic disaster from the start) advised Samuel McReelis (who headed the Port Hope Police Department's investigation) that he should make this notification.<br /> <br /> The investigation was poorly done. Every copper we spoke to asked us who killed Matiyek. After the conviction in November of 1979, police officers still did not know who shot Matiyek and a certain police officer, O.P.P. Corporal Terry Hall asked accused Larry Hurren what in fact had really happened at The Queen's Hotel on October 18, 1978. If Hurren would tell, Hall promised a reduced sentence. Hall was an experienced O.P.P. investigator. He must have realized that the thing was botched from the start, partly his doing.</p> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c15">M.J. O'Brien</p> <hr /> <p></p> <h3 class="c16"><a name="3"></a>Our Investigation's Observations and Conclusions:</h3> <p style="margin-left:30px"><a href="#top">top</a></p> <p>1) There was planning and deliberation for at least assault by at least one of the accused.</p> <p>2) Things got out of hand and Matiyek was shot in self-defence.</p> <p>3) The accused are only partially willing to cooperate in overturning the original verdict and inadvertently behave in a manner consistent with guilt. (i.e..: We have caught Comeau and Sauve in fairly significant lies and Comeau did his utmost to prevent us from seeking out and interviewing certain witnesses while vigorously directing us to others.)</p> <p>4) The defence team was uninformed and thus incompetent. There was no single, outcome-altering illegal practice by the authorities to incorrectly form the jury's decision, only pervasive incompetence and numerous smaller misconducts by police in the pursuit of their investigation.</p> <p>5) The accused did not testify and thus closed the door forever on their evidence unless all their peers who were in attendance would be willing to give statements.</p> <p>6) The police investigation fabricated its 'planning and deliberation' evidence and because of police bungling on a huge scale caused a fictitious version of the crime scene to be presented to the jury.</p> <p>7) The PHPD covered-up their bungling and in so doing rearranged the alleged facts to completely obscure the actions of Matiyek that night.</p> <p>8) Police used a large number of witnesses, particularly persons employed by Leo Powell, owner of the Queen's, thus limiting appeal opportunities.</p> <p>9) The "Queens" was a Golden Hawks bar where patrons and employees alike where opposed as a "team" against the Satan's Choice or persons aligned to the Satan's Choice. They were all willing to exaggerate or lie. Most admit same.</p> <p><br /> <a name="5"></a> 10) The most crucial witnesses whose testimony was schooled were:</p> <p><a href="#top">top</a></p> <ol type="a"> <li><b>Bill Goodwin</b> (premeditation and planning for the first degree argument of the Crown) Testimony was shaped by a lie he told Julie Powell and by interviews with Sam McReelis and Gary Woods.</li> <li><b>David Gillispie</b> (premeditation and planning for the first degree argument of the Crown) Gillispie's evidence is packed with lies, moreover, he played a significant role, with Douglas Peart, in obstructing evidence, including but not limited to gathering up drugs and firearms, possessions of the deceased.</li> <li><b>Roger Davey</b> was used to show planning and deliberation after the fact. He lied. He did not receive the phone call from Rick Sauve and could not possibly have heard what he claims to have heard over the telephone. He gave false evidence under threat of being charged with accessory after the fact.</li> <li><b>Lawrence Leoen</b> was and is today loyal to the (fantasy) Golden Hawks and is an avowed enemy of the Satan's Choice organization. At trial he was willing to say anything he was asked to say in order to convict those he believes conspired to kill Bill Matiyek. We have interviewed Mr. Leoen undercover and acknowledge that this man actually believes that Matiyek was murdered with planning and deliberation. He has admitted that he said and did everything he was told to say and do to cause the conviction.</li> <li><b>Helen Mitchell</b> who named Satan's Choice members she knew, not those she saw, and whose evidence could have confirmed a gun in Matiyek's boot casting doubt on the Crown's evidence. She changed her statement four times based on coaching by "Sammy" (which is how she knows Sam McReelis).</li> <li><b>Jamie Hanna, Susan Foote, Gayle Thompson, and Julie Joncas</b> were coached witnesses whose real evidence supports an argument of either self-defence or murder. Kathy Cotgrave's evidence was coached and bought for $10,000 we are told by her confidant Gail Doyle. The evidence of Davey, Goodwin, Gillispie, Fertile, Koehler and Leoen converted the women's account to 1st and 2nd degree murder.</li> </ol> <p class="c14">Interviewees from Port Hope Police Department</p> <ol type="a"> <li><b>Const. (retired) Douglas H. Shortreed</b><br /> - told us that PHPD did anything and everything to convict the bikers<br /> - every trick in the book<br /> - denied detail with Const. Dave Kelly<br /> - says there are rumours about Gary's jacket being in Sam's possession<br /> - we believe he knows more than he has told us</li> <li><b>Const. William Harry Wakely</b><br /> - a straight, honest cop who admits botching the investigation, though our research suggested forensic evidentiary botching was inevitable considering the facts that a) Wakely was cut out of the loop by McReelis; b) unbeknownst to Wakely, the crime scene had been seriously tampered with by civilians in concert with members of the PHPD; and c) that Wakely was used as a dupe by McReelis and some peers. Notably, just like among the bikers where the quietest and most civil took the 'fall', Wakely, a decent man, is a fall guy among the cops, criticized by upper echelons for the forensic work. Our investigation, however, proved the contrary. Wakely's efforts to bring in the O.P.P.'s forensic resources, although thwarted by McReelis at first, eventually paid off in as much as they could with a tampered and corrupted environment. It is hard to imagine what would have transpired if Wakely had not been a voice for the straight and narrow.<br /> - admits that there is something peculiar about the way in which he eventually found Matiyek's gun<br /> - says no police were present at hospital guarding evidence when he arrived in the earlier hours of Oct. 19<br /> - says there are rumours about Gary's jacket being in the possession of Sam McReelis</li> <li><b>Const. Kenneth Wilson</b><br /> - says he was ordered away from crime scene by Sam who arrived 3 min. after he did<br /> - says it was he who laid charges against Bill Goodwin<br /> - believes investigation was botched deliberately and that is why he was kept out of it</li> <li><b>Const. (retired) Tom Holdaway</b><br /> - left force in 1979 after the trial<br /> - knew investigation was seriously ("fucked up".. his words) botched and that there was a major cover-up<br /> - was a former O.P.P with lots of experience yet was kept out of investigation along with other members<br /> - says Sam kept Matiyek investigation close to the chest<br /> - lived down the street from Chief's home and observed Crown Attorney's car, and Sam's car at the chief's home constantly during the investigation</li> <li><b>O.P.P.</b><br /> Detective Inspector Robert Adams<br /> - conducted investigation responding to a complaint under Police Services Act<br /> - confirmed a widespread belief among police that the investigation was done poorly re: road blocks, photo line-ups etcetera<br /> - believes that Sam McReelis is incompetent but not crooked<br /> - says Wakely and others are also incompetent<br /> - knows little about the case<br /> - was shocked to learn that actual killer was never charged<br /> - does not like the idea of Ontario having its own "Milguard" but will not interfere in our investigation in exchange for our promise that we will report any criminal activities of Coppers, both PHPD and O.P.P.</li> </ol> <h4>Crown Witnesses Who Taint The Original Verdict</h4> <p><a href="#top">top</a></p> <ul> <li>Helen Mitchell<br /> - was in fact at the bar but was outside at time of shooting<br /> - had been drinking heavily during the day with Bill Matiyek, two Outlaws and Jamie Hanna<br /> - was buying Matiyek some drinks before Outlaws arrived<br /> - is absolutely certain that Matiyek had a gun in his boot<br /> - Matiyek had pulled up his pant leg and shown off the weapon<br /> - she observed the gun on several occasions during the time they were drinking<br /> - believes that accused got a raw deal strictly because they were Choice in a Hawks' bar<br /> - was attended to personally by Sam McReelis who drove to St. Catherines where she was living, picked her up and drove her to London for the trial<br /> - our interview was surreptitiously taped using body-wire (tape has not been played)</li> <li> <p>Roger Davie<br /> Will say that he perjured himself because he was threatened by McReelis.</p> </li> <li> <p>David Gillispie<br /> May be convinced to admit truth about "Fat Fucker" Statement and explain what happened to the pills, guns, and witnesses at Dave Hills' home.</p> </li> <li> <p>Kathy Cotgrave<br /> Can be discredited on the basis of a statement given to her friend Gail Doyle in which she said that her testimony was styled by police to convict the accused and that her motive for cooperating was payment of money.</p> </li> <li> <p>Gayle Thompson<br /> Confirms that the Queen's was a Hawks' bar and that patrons and employees were loyal to the Hawks and Matiyek and that the SCMC members were all guilty because they were trespassing, and that all employees of the bar felt that they should do whatever they could to help convict all of the SCMC members there -- and that this affected their testimony.</p> </li> </ul> <p><br /> <span><b>REQUIRED ACTION</b></span></p> <p><a href="#top">top</a></p> <p style="margin-left:30px"><br /> 1) Kenneth Wilson has told us that he attended at the Port Hope Police Station to take a statement from Douglas Peart and David Gillispie. Wakely confirmed this. Doug Peart has told us that he and Gillispie went to the Police Station to give a statement. In Gillispie's testimony under cross examination he clearly stated on several occasions that he gave a statement to Dave Kelly and Sam McReelis.</p> <ul> <li> <p style="margin-left:30px"><br /> Was Gillispie referring to a meeting with Kelly at Dave Hills' home? Did Kelly drive Gillispie and Peart to the Police Station?<br /> p.p. 1489<br /> D.W. Gillispie - cr-ex. (Kerbel)<br /> Q. And who was or who were the police officers that you spoke to that evening?<br /> A. I believe it was Constable Kelly.<br /> Q. Constable Kelly, and was he with the Port Hope Police?<br /> A. Yes.<br /> Q. And what about Sergeant McReelis, did you speak with him?<br /> A. Yes, I did have words with Sergeant McReelis that evening, I believe.</p> </li> <li> <p>2) The Dave Hills' meeting of witnesses on October 18 resulted in a statement given to police that police never brought forward. What was it?</p> </li> <li> <p>3) Sam McReelis perjured himself regarding Gary's jacket and not knowing that Gary had been shot. (i.e..: Depose Betty King for the record.)</p> </li> <li> <p>4) Toronto club house wire taps. (Metropolitan Toronto Police Intelligence Branch.) We filed an Freedom Of Information appeal to the ruling denying our obtaining this evidence, and in part, won. We did not get all the wire taps we wanted. In some circumstances, specific single page documents were removed from the thousands we received; and our request for the wires of the Markham Rd. Clubhouse for Oct 18, 1979 got buried. It is our belief the wires were done improperly in the first place hence part of the resistance, and secondly the information contained therein we were told by a bureaucrat is exculpatory. As a consequence, it is also our belief that the Crown, at the time of the trial in London Ontario 1979 had knowledge of exculpatory evidence.</p> </li> <li> <p>5) New witnesses. At least three but preferably all living members of the SCMC who were not identified. Plus Doyle, Racicot, Smith etcetera.</p> </li> <li> <p>6) Further interviews, direct and not by ruse or surreptitiously under cover, with Dave Hills, David Gillispie, Bill Goodwin (2), Doug Peart (2), Tim Austin, Dr. Tesluk, Fred Jones and Sonny Bronson.</p> </li> <li> <p>7) Depose these witnesses to verify on the record the extent of crime scene tampering; physical evidence corruption; particularly with respect to the Chain of possession of Matiyek's weapons. Details follow.</p> </li> </ul> <p class="c17"><br /> <span><b><a name="6"></a> THE CHAIN OF POSSESSION OF MATIYEK'S GUNS.</b></span><br /> According to ambulance records, Matiyek's body left Queen's hotel at 11:14.<br /> It went to Port Hope Hospital via ambulance and later to the Port Hope Morgue. From there it went to Civic Hospital in Peterborough. Later in the morning at or about 10:00am of October 19, Bill Wakely examined upper body cloths of Bill Matiyek who was naked from the waist. His blue shirt and red plaid bush jacket were piled on his stretched-out body which lay upon a wheeled gurney. Wakely discovered the small, .32 calibre semi- automatic Deutchewerke "Ortgies Special" in Matiyek's upper, left, breast pocket of the red plaid jack-shirt.</p> <p class="c17"><a href="#top">top</a></p> <ul type="square"> <li> <p class="c17">Three witnesses (Sauve, Comeau and Michael Everett) say the gun was in Matiyek's left hand prior to the shooting. Two Choice members walked over and examined the situation, were told to get lost by Matiyek and then presumably reported all this to the shooter who then proceeded to Matiyek's table shooting three shots at his head.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">According to the analysis we got from the Centre for Forensic Studies, the first shot grooved Matiyek's upper arm and penetrated flesh at the lower mandible, deflected down, traveled through soft tissue to the Adam's apple and then deflected off small bones to exit horizontally through the lower neck. Upon exit it entered Gary Comeau at his upper, rear, arm from the top. The trajectory indicates that Matiyek's upper left arm was raised to horizontal. No witness saw the gun come from his pocket but according to the three witnesses who saw a gun being held on Rick Sauve, the gun had to have been in his left hand, concealed partially within the pocket, withdrawn clumsily from time to time by Matiyek to show Sauve he meant business. Simulations with an exact replica of both the firearm and the jacket showed us what the witnesses described. Read on.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">The second bullet was lethal, entering the cranium in front of and at the centre of<br /> Matiyek's left ear. It drove through the brain causing a cessation of motor and sensory functions, striking the inside of the right cranium wall and deflected, without fracturing the cranium, bouncing back about one inch.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">The third missile smashed through the back of Matiyek's skull as he fell forward and to his right side, crashing through bone and fragmenting as it went.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">Matiyek fell to the floor, presumably with a gun still in his hand, or falling from his hand onto the floor.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">Shortly after this time Rod Stewart attended Matiyek and he immediately rolled him over onto his back, possibly, admits Stewart, on top of the gun.</p> </li> </ul> <p class="c18">Chronology:</p> <ul> <li> <p class="c17">10:50pm -- Matiyek talks on phone to Patrick Ghaney and as he walks back to his table passing Rick Sauve on the way he says, "Com'ere Rick for a second".</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">10:55 -- Matiyek threatens Rick Sauve with a weapon.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">10:55+ -- A certain (two) individuals approach Matiyek to survey situation.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">11:00pm -- Matiyek is shot three times.<br /> Eight minutes elapse....<br /> 11:08 P.C.s Kenneth Wilson and David MacDonald arrive finding 12 to 15 people of whom Jamie Hanna, Gayle Thompson, Sue Foote, Peter Murdoch, Peter LaBrash, Kathy Cotgrave were noted. Seven people surrounded the deceased while Rod Stewart allegedly gave First Aid to Matiyek. According to Gayle Thompson who was running from the washroom toward Matiyek, Stewart told her and everyone else to stay away from Matiyek as he was kneeling at the body.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">11:10 Sgt. Sam McReelis arrived and according to Wilson, instructed Wilson to leave scene and interview witnesses, thus losing integrity of the crime scene.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">11:14 Matiyek's body was removed by ambulance, taken to Port Hope Hospital.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">11:40 Bill Wakely arrives, orders Wilson to preserve crime scene but it is too late.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">11:45 Patrick Ghaney arrived at Hotel.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">01:00 (at or about) Douglas Shortreed and David Kelly arrive at north entrance.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">1:05 Kenneth Wilson leaves Queen's hotel</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">01:15 Oct. 19 Corp. James Moore arrives.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">2:05 Peart and Gillispie are at Police Station with Wilson and McReelis</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">2:30 Dorris and Metro Matiyek are behind the Queen's somehow having possession of Matiyek's keys and other paraphernalia from his pockets. Doris drives Matiyek's truck home, Metro drives the family truck.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">3:40 Wakely attends Port Hope Hospital where he finds deceased unguarded.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">10:00 Wakely and Moore find gun in Matiyek's inside left pocket of his jacket which is folded and laid on his belly. Wakely finds NO OTHER OBJECTS in the pockets!!<br /> Gun is never fingerprinted.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">Shortreed lied to us on March 25 at Heroes in Port Hope. He said he was not at the scene. He was. He also lied about not saying anything to "Kenny" Wilson about Dave Hills or knowing anything about the name Dave Hills being mentioned to Wilson. Wilson's evidence makes this very clear. Shortreed did in fact make such a statement, or at least his partner David Kelly did in Shortreed's presence.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">During the cross examination of P.C. Wilson -- who with his partner MacDonald were first on the scene at 11:08pm -- one of the defence counsel took Wilson's notebook from him and observed a notation "David Hills". Subsequent questioning drew only evasive responses one of which indicated that someone had taken a statement from Dave Hills.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">Shortreed and Kelly were at David Hills' home where a gathering of witnesses began to amass immediately after the shooting. Shortreed and Kelly later reported a statement made by Hills and about some of the goings on at Hills' home. The gathering continued into the wee hours. Jamie Hanna admits to being at the gathering for an hour. She said people came and went. It was dragged out of her at the trial during cross-examination. Something happened at Hills' place that Port Hope Police -- including Wilson and Shortreed -- want hushed.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">In fact, after the shooting, most of the witnesses were at the home of Dave Hills. That included at least, Jamie Hanna, Peart, Gillispie, Sue Foote, Kathy Cotgrave and Hills himself. Hills was a bartender at the Queen's Hotel lounge.<br /> </p> </li> </ul> <p></p> <p class="c18"><a name="8"></a> KEY EVIDENCE TO QUASH VERDICT<br /> Regina vs. McLeod et al, 1979</p> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c17"><a href="#top">top</a><br /> <b>1. BRIBED AND COERCED WITNESSES.</b></p> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c17"><b>a) Helen Mitchell</b><br /> Helen Mitchell changed her statement four times based on coaching by Sam McReelis. Her evidence could have confirmed a gun in Bill Matiyek's boot, which would have cast doubt on the Crown's evidence. She was personally attended to by Sam McReelis, who picked her up in St. Catherine's and drove her to London for the trial.</p> <p class="c17">In naming Choice members, Helen named those she knew, not those she saw on October 18, 1978 at the Queen's Hotel.</p> <p class="c18">TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, p.p. 852-853<br /> Helen Mitchell, for Crown, in-chief</p> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c19">Q. Now, Miss Mitchell, can you tell us whether you were in the Queens Hotel on the evening that Bill Matiyek died?</p> <p class="c19">A. Yes, I was.</p> <p class="c19">Q. And can you tell me whether you know any of the accused men who are seated before the court?</p> <p class="c19">A. Yes.</p> <p class="c19">Q. Now I don't want to know how you came to know them, just that you know them and could you indicate to us please which of the accused before the court you knew before October 18th, 1978.</p> <p class="c19">A. Not saying that they were in --</p> <p class="c19">Q. Just that you --</p> <p class="c19">A. Knew them before?</p> <p class="c19">Q. I want you to tell us all those that you knew before October 18th -- okay? -- before you came into the hotel on that evening.</p> <p class="c19">A. Merv Blaker.</p> <p class="c19">Q. That's the gentleman who is the first one from the right?</p> <p class="c19">A. Yes, the one on the far end. Gord Van Harlem, whatever, if that's how you pronounce it.</p> <p class="c19">Q. Which one is he?</p> <p class="c19">A. The one sitting second from the end.</p> <p class="c19">Q. Okay.</p> <p class="c19">A. Rick Sauve.</p> <p class="c19">Q. Is that the fifth from your right? Yes?</p> <p class="c19">A. Yes. And Larry Hurren.</p> <p class="c19">Q. Is that the man next to Rick Sauve?</p> <p class="c19">A. Yes.</p> <p class="c19">Q. Yes?</p> <p class="c19">A. And none others.</p> <p class="c17">Yet, Helen Mitchell referred to David Hoffman as Tee-Hee, even though she didn't know him.</p> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c18">Helen Mitchell, for Crown, cr-ex Martin.<br /> p.p. 867</p> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c19">Q. Miss Mitchell, you told us you saw some men come in and you gave us three names and then you said "Tee-Hee, I didn't know him then." Is that right?</p> <p class="c19">A. That's right, yes.</p> <p class="c19">Q. So on October 18th the man you say is Tee-Hee was a stranger to you?</p> <p class="c19">A. Yes.</p> <p class="c19">Q. Is that right? You had never seen him before?</p> <p class="c19">A. No.</p> <p class="c19">Q. And neither did you know the nickname Tee-Hee or any other name for him. Is that right?</p> <p class="c19">A. That's right, yes.<br /> </p> <p class="c17"><a href="#top">top</a><br /> Our information: <span class="c20">Helen didn't know Tee-Hee; she saw someone with white on his feet. But she did not say that the man she saw who looked like Hoffman was wearing running shoes. In cr-ex by Martin, she said there was something white on his feet, "It was shoes or if he was just wearing socks I don't know, but there was white." (p.p. 872). Having told the police this, it seems obvious that her testimony was fed to her. She didn't know Hoffman beforehand, and therefore could not have known that he liked wearing running shoes. The police knewthat Hoffman was in Kitchener that night and could not possibly have been at the Queen's Hotel at the time Bill Matiyek was killed, but with Helen Mitchell able to say that someone had white on his feet they were able to say that he was there.</span></p> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c17"><br /> <b>b) Kathy Cotgrave</b><br /> Kathy Cotgrave can be discredited on the basis that she was paid $10,000.00 for phrasing her testimony a certain way. She was bribed by police, which can be argued based on the statement of Gail Doyle.</p> <p class="c17"><br /> <b>c) Bill Goodwin</b><br /> His testimony was shaped by a lie he told Julie Joncas and interviews he had with Sam McReelis and Gary Woods. Larry Sauve can say that Bill Goodwin lied in his testimony.</p> <p class="c17"><br /> <b>d) Roger Davey</b><br /> Police had the phone records and knew that a call had been placed from David Hoffman's house to the Davey residence early in the morning of October 19, 1978. He was threatened with being charged with accessory after the fact if he didn't testify. Because of this, Roger perjured himself, giving testimony that he took the call from Rick Sauve, which he didn't. He also said that it sounded like a party was going on in the background, something he couldn't possibly have heard since he did not answer the phone.</p> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c18"><a name="10"></a> 2. PERJURY AT TRIAL.</p> <p class="c17"><a href="#top">top</a></p> <ul> <li> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c17">a) <b>Roger Davey lied</b> when he said that he answered a call from Rick Sauve the night Bill Matiyek was killed.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17"><br /> b) <b>Bill Goodwin lied</b> when he said he had a conversation with Rick Sauve in which something happening to Matiyek was threatened by Sauve.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17"><br /> <b>c) Sam McReelis lied</b> when he said he knew nothing of Gary being shot. Betty King, Gary's mother, did not know that Gary had been shot until Sam McReelis said to her, "lots of</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">young fellas go out at night and don't tell their parents what they do but we think Gary was shot that night." Both McReelis and Cousins were in her house at the time, but later in court the police denied having told her anything like that.</p> </li> </ul> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c17"><br /> <b>3. WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE.</b></p> <ul> <li> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c17">a) The Kitchener clubhouse was wiretapped. The police introduced these wiretaps to the lawyers prior to a day in court, but they were not complete. They did not continue to the time of the raid on the Kitchener clubhouse (attended by Terry Hall and others) on the night of October 18, 1978. The police had continued knowledge of Hoffman's whereabouts until about 10:30 pm that night, when he left the clubhouse to go home.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17"><br /> b) A meeting (conspiracy) of witnesses took place after Bill Matiyek's death at Dave Hills' place. Something happened at Hills' house that police want hushed up, including Shortreed and Wilson. Doug Shortreed made a statement, or at least his partner David Kelly did in his presence, about Dave Hills to Wilson. Wilson's testimony makes that very clear. Shortreed and Kelly were probably at Hills' home and later reported a statement made by Hills which was never brought forward. What was it?</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17"><br /> c) What happened to Comeau's jacket?</p> </li> </ul> <p class="c17"></p> <p class="c18">4. <a name="7"></a> CRIME SCENE TAMPERING AND THE CHAIN OF POSSESSION OF MATIYEK'S GUN</p> <ul style="margin-left:30px"> <li> <p class="c17">a) The body was moved and was never marked off.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17"><br /> b) No photographs were taken of the crime scene, according to Bill Wakely.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17"><br /> c) Tables and chairs were righted; persons attending to the body moved chairs to access.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17"><br /> d) Testimonial evidence suggests that Matiyek was in the possession of drugs and that his weapon had nine cartridges. Helen Mitchell had also seen a gun in Matiyek's boot. This was not found and is now in the possession of Lawrence Leoen. The gun Matiyek had in his hand was not discovered until around 10:00 the following morning. Matiyek's body left the Queen's Hotel at 11:14 pm and went to the Port Hope hospital via ambulance -- no police accompanied the body. From there, it went to the Port Hope morgue and then to Civic Hospital in Peterborough. At or about 10:00 am, October 19, 1978, Bill Wakely discovered the small .32 calibre semi-automatic the upper, left, inside breast pocket of Matiyek's jacket. (Matiyek's clothes were piled on his chest as his body lay on a guernsey.) Three witnesses, Comeau, Sauve and Everett,</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">say the gun was in Matiyek's left hand prior to the shooting. When he was shot he fell to the floor, presumably with the gun still in his hand or falling from his hand to the floor. Bill Wakely did not discover anything in</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17"><br /> Matiyek's boot. How did the gun get from Matiyek's hand at the time of the shooting to his inside pocket the following morning?</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17"><br /> f) No police were present at the hospital guarding the evidence.</p> </li> </ul> <p class="c17"><a href="#top">top</a></p> <p class="c18">5. THE INVESTIGATION.</p> <ul style="margin-left:30px"> <li> <p class="c17">a) The crime scene wasn't dusted for prints. It was claimed that there was nothing there except greasy and porous material from which prints can't be lifted very easily. But there were glasses and pieces of broken glass on the floor which could have been dusted.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17"><br /> b) Matiyek's gun was not dusted for prints.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17"><br /> c) The photo identification was done by Constable Don Denis, someone with no prior experience in photo identification and no one to inform him of proper procedures. Some photographs had more attention drawn to them by way of a red dot placed on them (to indicate more pictures underneath). At one point, two witnesses viewed the array together. Denis' instructions to witnesses included not only to select pictures of those people that were there, but also to identify those thought to possibly have been there. At least, that was the case with Gayle Thompson:</p> </li> </ul> <p class="c18">TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, p.p. 613-614<br /> Gayle Thompson, for Crown, cr-ex Kerbel</p> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c19">Q. I believe the officer who was in charge of the line-up, the array, Constable Denis, told you why you were there?</p> <p class="c19">A. Yes, what the purpose --</p> <p class="c19">Q. What were his instructions?</p> <p class="c19">A. To take my time, look over all the pictures; if I saw anyone that I knew for certain or I thought possibly had been there the night that Bill was shot.</p> <p class="c19">Q. Let's just stop there a moment. I want you to go back over that. He told you to take your time?</p> <p class="c19">A. Yes.</p> <p class="c19">Q. Look at all the pictures?</p> <p class="c19">A. Correct.</p> <p class="c19"><br /> Q. And to indicate anybody who was there or who you thought might possibly be there?</p> <p class="c19">A. Correct.</p> <p class="c19">...Further down on p.p. 614</p> <p class="c19">Q. Let's try to be a little more specific, Miss Thompson. Let's go back. He told you to take your time to look at all the photographs and then what did he tell you to do?</p> <p class="c19">A. To instruct him when I saw someone I recognized as being there that night.</p> <p class="c19">Q. Or who might possibly have been there that night?</p> <p class="c19">A. Correct.</p> <p class="c19">Q. Both?</p> <p class="c19">A. Yes.</p> <p class="c19">The pictures were placed in folders marked "SCMC" and "OUTLAWS". During the preliminary hearing, Kathy Cotgrave talked about the markings on the front of the folders:</p> <p class="c18">TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, p.p. 1342-1343<br /> Kathy Cotgrave, for Crown, cr-ex Cugelman</p> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c19">Q. Perhaps I might refer you to your evidence given at the preliminary hearing in Port Hope on February the 19th, 1979.<br /> I will put to you certain questions and answers and I will ask you if you can recall having been asked the questions and giving the answers?</p> <p class="c19">A. Mmm-hm.</p> <p class="c19">Q. Beginning at Page 192 at line 8, and we were previously discussing your identification of my client at the photographic line-up.<br /> "Q. And were there more than one photograph of him in these albums?<br /> "A. I believe so, yes.<br /> "Q. Pardon?<br /> "A. Yes, I think so.<br /> "Q. And the folders, I think you have already indicated were marked "with "Satan's Choice", or whatever?<br /> </p> <p class="c19">"A. Well, yeah, they were all opened out on a table; before you "opened them up they were marked like that."</p> <ul> <li> <p class="c17">d) There were various discussions among witnesses, which may have affected testimony, about what happened in the lounge of the Queen's Hotel on the night of October 18:</p> </li> </ul> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c18">TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, p.p. 649<br /> Gayle Thompson, for Crown, cr-ex Kerbel</p> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c19">Q. And I take it that the Port Hope and Cobourg area being a relatively small community you had occasion to see Miss Cotgrave and Miss Foote and Miss Hanna after the 18th of October?</p> <p class="c19">A. That's correct.</p> <p class="c19">Q. And I suggest to you that it would have been natural for the, for several of you to talk about that evening, to recall the death of Mr. Matiyek?</p> <p class="c19">A. That's correct.</p> <p class="c19">Q. He was a friend of all of you. You did do that?</p> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c19">A. Yes, we spoke about it.</p> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c17">Our information: Kathy Cotgrave, Jamie Hanna and David Gillispie all testified to discussions among witnesses. Under cross-examination by Grossman, Jamie Hanna clearly sets out that "We were together the night of the murder", "about an hour" at Dave Hills' home. (p.p. 1454-1455). Hanna was very evasive, but Grossman didn't pursue it long.</p> <p class="c17">David Gillispie in his testimony implied that his statements were influenced by others. Gillispie gave three statements to the police -- October 19, November 28 and December 29. The last one contains a very substantial change:</p> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c18">TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS, p.p. 1517-1520<br /> David Gillispie, for Crown, cr-ex Kerbel</p> <p class="c19">Q. All right, and I take it that by the time you gave your statement on the 29th of December, 1978, you were aware of some of the details of what other people had said that they observed?</p> <p class="c19">A. Yes.</p> <p class="c19">...Halfway down page 1518</p> <p class="c19">Q. I would like you to look at your statement which is exhibit No. 74C, dated December the 29th, 1978, and it's headed "David William Gillispie, 104 Walton Street, Port Hope.", and it reads as follows:<br /> "Since your last statement and as a result of further investigation I "would like to clarify the following points.<br /> "#1. With reference to the first sentence of your statement that you "and Douglas Peart wanted to be in the Queen's Hotel by 11:00 P.M.</p> <p class="c19">"Q. Why did you want to be there at that time?<br /> "A. We were going to pick up Kathy Cotgrave, she was to be done work "at 11:00 P.M. then we were going to go and party.<br /> "#2. Question. You stated in your statement that you and Doug Peart "arrived at about twenty to twelve..."</p> <p class="c19">HIS LORDSHIP: "Eleven".<br /> KERBEL: "Eleven", sorry:</p> <p class="c19">"twenty to eleven. You went into the back room and met Sue Foote and "Gayle Thompson. Sue Foote believes you came in about ten to eleven. "She and Peart started playing shuffle board. At this point she "stated that about eight Satan's Choice members walked in by the back "door. Do you recall seeing eight members coming into the lounge? "Were they in addition to the members such as Murray Blaker, Rick "Sauve, Fred Jones and a few others whose names you did not know.<br /> "Answer. In my previous statement it was wrote down wrong. When "Douglas Peart and I arrived, Murray Blaker and Ric. Sauve arrived a "few minutes after we did..."</p> <p class="c18">...p.p.1520</p> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c19">Q. So I take it, that the first time you tell the police that these men arrived after you were there, is in this statement of December 29th, 1978 when Sergeant McReelis tells you what Sue Foote said happened. Is that correct?</p> <p class="c19">A. That's correct.</p> <p class="c17"><a href="#top">top</a></p> <ul> <li> <p class="c17">e) Someone on the police force was aware of the meeting at Dave Hills' place. P.C. Kenneth Wilson, for Crown, cr-ex Kerbel. Kerbel had been questioning Wilson about seven people he observed around Matiyek's body. Jamie Hanna, Gayle Thompson, Sue Foote, Peter Murdoch, Rod Stewart, Peter LaBrash, Kathy Cotgrave. There were 12-15 there when Wilson arrived but by the time he got around to taking names, only seven remained. He named theseven, "and the deceased"...</p> </li> </ul> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c17"><b>p.p. 140</b><br /> <i>Q. And the deceased. Constable you have been making reference to your notes. May I see them please?</i></p> <p class="c19">A. Certainly.</p> <p class="c19">Q. Thank you, sir. Perhaps you could indicate where they begin and where they end?</p> <p class="c19">A. Page 72 and they end at 76.</p> <p class="c19">Q. Thank you, sir. I am sorry, I can't make out this.</p> <p class="c19">A. David Hills.</p> <p class="c19">Q. David Hills. Thank you sir...(goes on to question about seven people around deceased). Not Hills nor Douglas Shortreed nor David Kelly were ever called.</p> <p class="c19">...p.p. 143 (Wilson for Crown, cr-ex Kerbel)<br /> Q. May I see your notes again please, sir?</p> <p class="c19">A. Yes.</p> <p class="c19">Q. What about Mr. Hills, did he provide you with an identification, description, or name of a man he believed shot Mr. Matiyek?</p> <p class="c19">A. Not me, no.</p> <p class="c19">Q. Not you. But you have -- were you present when Mr. Hills made some statement?</p> <p class="c19">A. No.</p> <p class="c19">Q. Well, it appears there is some notation in your notebook, is there not, with respect to Mr. Hills?</p> <p class="c19">A. Yes, there is. It is information which was hearsay evidence which I wrote there which was passed on to me by the twelve till eight shift.</p> <p class="c19">Q. Who in the twelve till eight shift gave you that information?</p> <p class="c19">A. One of the two constables mentioned here. I don't know which one.</p> <p class="c19">Q. What are their names please?</p> <p class="c19">A. Constable Kelly and Shortreed.</p> <p class="c19">Q. Kelly and Shortreed.</p> <p class="c19">A. Right.</p> <ul> <li> <p style="margin-left:30px" class="c17">f) The crime scene wasn't preserved.</p> </li> <li> <p class="c17">g) Fraudulent evidence was put before the jurists by way of obstruction, perjury and corruption to prove <i>mens rea</i>.</p> </li> </ul> <p class="c17"><a href="#top">top</a><br /> <b>6. INCONSISTENCIES</b></p> <p class="c17">a) Kenneth Wilson said that he attended at the Port Hope police station to take a statement from David Gillispie and Douglas Peart; Wakely confirmed this. In Gillispie's testimony, under cross-examination, he clearly stated on several occasions that he gave a statement to Dave Kelly and Sam McReelis. Was Gillispie referring to a meeting with Kelly at Dave Hills' house? Did Kelly drive Gillispie and Peart to the police station?</p> <p class="c17">c) Rod Stewart contradicts himself in his testimony.</p> <p class="c18">TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS, p.p. 1639-1641<br /> Rod Stewart, for Crown, in-chief</p> <p class="c19">Q. All right, let's talk about the large group of people that came in then, how did they arrive?</p> <p class="c19">A. Together. We were sitting at the bar, talking, and without any real noticing that anybody had come in, we realized that there were about fifteen people around us, so they came in together and just seemed to be there all of a sudden.</p> <p class="c18">...p.p. 1641, bottom of the page</p> <p class="c19"><b>THE WITNESS:</b> I saw them come in as a group...</p> <p class="c18">7. OUR KEY WITNESSES</p> <p class="c17"><a href="#top">top</a></p> <p class="c17">a) Roger Davey swore a statement saying that he perjured himself at the trial. He was threatened with being charged with accessory after the fact.</p> <p class="c17">b) Diane Davey answered the call from Rick Sauve. She has sworn a statement to this effect.</p> <p class="c17">c) Michael Everett was a witness at the Queen's Hotel the night Bill Matiyek was killed. He saw the gun in Matiyek's hand as he approached the table.</p> <p class="c17">d) Gail Doyle can give evidence that Kathy Cotgrave was paid $10,000.00 to phrase her testimony a certain way. Kathy told her this around 1981, in thepresence of Brian Babcock and Faith Doyle. Kathy also told Gail that other witnesses were paid varying amounts of money in consideration for phrasing their testimony a certain way.</p> <p class="c17">e) Daniel Racicot was in the Queen's the night of the murder. He saw two men in green Ontario Hydro parkas, one on either side of another man who appeared to be holding a revolver. Racicot was seated at a table next to the Matiyek table, on the south side. He saw Gary Comeau seated beside Bill Matiyek and has sworn a statement saying that Gary Comeau was definitely not the gunman.</p> <p class="c17">f) Larry Sauve can say that Bill Goodwin lied in his testimony. When Goodwin went to see Larry about borrowing his truck, two of Matiyek's cousins were there as well as Rick Sauve. Larry says that the conversation Goodwin testified to did not take place. With Matiyek's cousins there, it would seem highly unlikely that a conversation of that nature would be had in their presence.</p> <p class="c17"><a href="#top">top</a></p> <p class="c18">8. NEW PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.</p> <p class="c17">a) We obtained and have the Toronto clubhouse wiretaps.</p> <hr /> <p class="c21"><i><a name="11"></a>Regina vs. McLeod et al</i> in the context of <i>Regina vs. Starr</i></p> <span class="c22">The Fall 2000 Supreme Court of Canada ruling on <i>Regina vs. Starr,</i> and its jury charge commentary says (paraphrased) juries in criminal cases must have heard evidence to indicate a high degree of guilt before convicting; and judges in criminal matters are responsible for delivering that message to juries. Moreover the Supreme Court of Canada suggests there have been previous failures on the part of judges when doing their charge to juries in major criminal matters.<br /> <br /> There is more than a reasonable likelihood the jury in <i>McLeod et al</i> applied the wrong standard of proof--astoundingly so. In all my work I would like to believe that juries would interpret evidence I gather and assign guilt within the context of clearly defined "reasonable doubt", but typically juries make decisions heavily weighted on whether they like the accused and their lawyers, or not. One has to bear that in mind before ever entering the court room. And that is the sharpest issue for <i>McLeod et al</i>. The accused and their lawyers were virtual pariahs in the eyes of an authorities-led societal mindset; and remain so today.<br /> <br /> A hoped-for decision of parliament favouring relief for the convicted/accused needs not only a sophisticated legal argument to convince parliament that the original trial's outcome was unfair and unjust, but a prevailing belief must be instilled among sufficient lawmakers that the public would find a re-trial or other relief palatable, and further, Members of Parliament would need to first believe relief would be consistent with the prevailing common thoughts pertaining to so-called 'biker crime'. A re-trial is not too likely in other words.<br /> <br /> Nevertheless, in all this it occurs to me that in advance of a plea to parliament for relief (which thus far is the only venue available to <i>McLeod</i>'s accused), a campaign should be prepared by the defence team to inform the public that the deceased Bill Matiyek was not a hapless and helpless victim to be pined over as such by his community but was in fact a rogue of no less infamy than the accused; moreover he brought on his own demise with his own brand of malfeasance. This should be approached seriously. Failing to mold favourable public opinion certainly contributed to the defence's failure in <i>McLeod et al</i> and was a case-fatal error on the part of the defence team in the <i>Kinsella</i> matter, as another example.<br /> <br /> The form of the pre-Charter <i>McLeod et al</i> trial could not re-occur today or within the environment of the post-Charter era - (I would hope), but with the new thinking as regards to so-called organized crime; victim impact evaluation; **balance of probability favoured over requisite reasonable doubt in biker club-related matters; and the prevailing contempt for organized motorcyclists; a 'fairer' trial could not be had either! It will never be heard <i>tabula rasa</i> (with objectivity) in today's environment.<br /> <br /> As outrageously unjust as is the outcome of <i>Regina vs. McLeod et al</i> in 1979, (e.g. Satan's Choice MC members accused in <i>McLeod et al</i> were associates to the killer within a cult environment favouring crime over lawfulness, <i>a fortiori</i> all associates are guilty as well.) it is nevertheless a sample of things to come in the new millennium. In other words, unfairness in the treatment of such types of matters is seemingly welcomed by at least the current law-enforcers and lawmakers; and whereas no supporting model is needed to nourish this unreasoned mindset, <i>Regina vs. McLeod</i> is enjoyed as such a model by the current authorities. Had the accused mounted a proper defence at the time, the prevailing winds might blow differently. Perhaps not. We'll never know.<br /> <br /> The upshot of this, from my viewpoint, is that a blow is struck to the principals of liberty and justice allegedly enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when government leads society in branding as a pariah a certain large-scale subset of society and chooses to treat that group unfairly, wholesale. This is a mindset characterized by ignorance and crudity reminiscent of history's darkest lessons.<br /> Micheal J. O'Brien<br /> <br /> <br /> <b><a name="footnote"></a>**Footnote:</b></span> <b class="c23"><br /> "Balance of probability" favoured over "reasonable doubt" in biker club-related matters.</b><span class="c22"><br /> <br /> Enough is enough. This is way over the line! Advocates of this grotesque imitation or misrepresentation of what justice really is about represent a greater evil to Canadian society than the yahoos they claim to be protecting society from. Certainly this flies in the face of the adage "that it is better that ten guilty go free than one innocent goes to jail", a saying that sets forth a general truth about the foundation of our criminal justice system.<br /> <br /> Fear for your liberty; and fear all lawmakers and law-enforcers should this come to pass as a prevailing criteria for any court to adjudicate criminal matters. That any lawmaker would suggest such a thing is an astoundingly sorry statement about the quality of human intelligence attracted to and elected for public policy-making in the current era of Canadian federal politics.<br /> <br /> The Supreme Court of Canada, in late 2000, demonstrated foresight and wisdom and is a light in the storm in the <i>Regina vs. Starr</i> matter. This has less to do with any particular case and more to do with the current whimsical pursuit within Canadian federal parliament for ransacking the criminal justice system seeking a means to tougher legislation for dealing with so-called 'biker-related crimes'. Society would be better off to tolerate tenfold biker annoyances than enduring a trashing of its right to objective jurisprudence.It would serve society better if the law enforcement community would get off its collective duff, drop its collective donut and crying towel and do its collective job properly instead of whining about how difficult the work is and assigning blame elsewhere for all its collective failures.</span> <div class="c8"> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="c26"> <tr> <td width="100%"> <p class="c25"><img height="45" alt="Download server." src="http://www.mobrien.com/images/mobriencom.gif" width="261" align="middle" border="0" /><br /> <span class="c24">[ <a title="This mail sender will automatically provide a link to this page so the recipient knows the page you are referring." href="http://www.mobrien.com/cgi-bin/mail/friendform.cgi">Tell A Friend</a> | <a title="Download or play MP3s" href="http://sm.mobrien.com/mp3_search.html">MP3s</a> | <a href="http://www.mobrien.com/music.shtml" title="Midi Music Downloads">Music</a> | <a title="Complete a request for assistance and a response will be emailed." href="http://www.mobrien.com/e-me.html">Help</a> | <a title="Home" href="/">Home</a> | <a title="About this site." href="http://www.mobrien.com/mobrien.html">About</a> | <a title="Here you will find an assortment of scripts and hacker tools." href="http://library.mobrien.com/downloads/scripts.html">Scripts & Hacker Tools</a> | <a title="A set of calculators to resolve network nodes, subnet masks, run traces and do other network calculations." href="http://library.mobrien.com/net.shtml">Net Tools</a> | <a title="This is a HANDLE link, not a URL. You must install a browser plugin. See below." href="http://library.mobrien.com:8000/1720/">hdl:1720/</a> ]</span></p> </td> </tr> </table> </div> <script type="text/javascript"> //<![CDATA[  //]]> </script>