Pickton trial - Police lied. So?

[Canadjun]

See http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2007/01/30/3482276.html

Why is it particularly surprising that police lied to Pickton? Am I mistaken in my understanding that it is fairly standard practise for police to do things like exaggerate the evidence they have and tell various other lies to get suspects to admit to things during an interrogation?

[Q.E.D]

It is, and there is nothing at all illegal or exculpatory about police lying to a suspect during questioning. It’s done all the time. The good news is that apparently the defendant’s lawyer is an idiot since he is apparently not aware of this, thus ensuring his client will likely go to prison for a long, long time for his crimes.

[Chronos]

The good news is that apparently the defendant’s lawyer is an idiot since he is apparently not aware of this

Don’t jump to that conclusion. It might be that the lawyer is perfectly aware of this, but is hoping that the jury will be idiots. Which, unfortunately, is not an uncommon state of affairs.

[Q.E.D]

I realize this. Hence the winky.

[Seven]

@Q.E.D.

It is, and there is nothing at all illegal or exculpatory about police lying to a suspect during questioning. It’s done all the time.

I know that’s the case in the US* but is it in Canada?
*Legal? I’m not sure. Done all the time? Yes.

[Q.E.D]

@Seven

I know that’s the case in the US* but is it in Canada?

I have no idea. I didn’t realize this was in Canada. Do we have any Canadian lawyers here?

[xiix]

IANACL (Canadian Lawyer…) but I did catch a Canadian Broadcast Corporation news report on the trial and they explicitly stated a few times that its perfectly legal and SOP for cops to lie while interogating suspects.

[DSYoungEsq]

Um, I am not a lawyer in Canada, and I am working only with the information in the specific news article linked, which isn’t much.

However, the attorney is not an idiot, nor is he unaware of the law, nor is he hoping the jurors will be idiots, either. He is probably attempting to do two things:

1. Cast doubt upon the value of the evidence the province is offering by creating a generalized opinion that the police are lying bastards, and, more importantly,

2. Trying to cast doubt upon the statements his client made during the interrogations.

It might be interesting to know the whole story here before people jump to conclusions about legal issues. :rolleyes:

[Q.E.D]

@DSYoungEsq

It might be interesting to know the whole story here before people jump to conclusions about legal issues. :rolleyes:

Just like one should read a whole thread before jumping to conclusions, as well. Wouldn’t you agree?

[Rick]

I was in Vancouver last week and read about this trial every day in the local paper. On the second day of the trial the prosecution called a retired police detective as an expert witness to testify as to how well the interrogation was conducted. As reported int he paper he used words like excellent and brilliant to describe the police’s conduct of the interview.

[Gorsnak]

While I’m not following the trial terribly closely, it’s my impression that not a whole lot hangs on the self-incriminating statements made during the interrogation anyways. The police have seriously damning physical evidence - body parts and dna of the victims were found all over Pickton’s farm. The defense theory is going to have to be that someone else killed 50 women on this farm, dismembered their corpses, and disposed of them, all without the farm owner having any idea it was going on. Seems like a tough sell, at least on the surface.

[Spoons]

I am not a Canadian lawyer, but I am a Canadian law student, and if I recall my Evidence class correctly, the leading case on what Canadian police can do during questioning is R. v. Oickle, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3. The relevant part of the judgment states the following:

(Paragraph 65) A final consideration in determining whether a confession is voluntary or not is the police use of trickery to obtain a confession. Unlike the previous three headings, this doctrine is a distinct inquiry. While it is still related to voluntariness, its more specific objective is maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system. Lamer J.’s concurrence in Rothman, supra, introduced this inquiry. In that case, the Court admitted a suspect’s statement to an undercover police officer who had been placed in a cell with the accused. In concurring reasons, Lamer J. emphasized that reliability was not the only concern of the confessions rule; otherwise the rule would not be concerned with whether the inducement was given by a person in authority. He summarized the correct approach at p. 691:

“[A] statement before being left to the trier of fact for consideration of its probative value should be the object of a voir dire in order to determine, not whether the statement is or is not reliable, but whether the authorities have done or said anything that could have induced the accused to make a statement which was or might be untrue. It is of the utmost importance to keep in mind that the inquiry is not concerned with reliability but with the authorities’ conduct as regards reliability.”

(Paragraph 66) Lamer J. was also quick to point out that courts should be wary not to unduly limit police discretion (at p. 697):

“[T]he investigation of crime and the detection of criminals is not a game to be governed by the Marquess of Queensbury rules. The authorities, in dealing with shrewd and often sophisticated criminals, must sometimes of necessity resort to tricks or other forms of deceit and should not through the rule be hampered in their work. What should be repressed vigorously is conduct on their part that shocks the community.”

(Paragraph 66 continued) As examples of what might “shock the community”, Lamer J. suggested a police officer pretending to be a chaplain or a legal aid lawyer, or injecting truth serum into a diabetic under the pretense that it was insulin. Lamer J.’s discussion on this point was adopted by the Court in Collins, supra, at pp. 286-87; see also R. v. Clot (1982), 69 C.C.C. (2d) 349 (Que. Sup. Ct.).

Emphasis added. Looks like the police can lie to get information, but they cannot go too far.

[Chronos]

The defense theory is going to have to be that someone else killed 50 women on this farm, dismembered their corpses, and disposed of them, all without the farm owner having any idea it was going on.

Or they could maintain that there weren’t body parts on the farm in the first place, and that the police are lying about that. One would hope that would be an even tougher sell, but similar tactics have been used in the past, and it would be consistent with the “the cops are lying bastards” angle that they seem to be pursuing.

[Gorsnak]

@Chronos

Or they could maintain that there weren’t body parts on the farm in the first place, and that the police are lying about that. One would hope that would be an even tougher sell, but similar tactics have been used in the past, and it would be consistent with the “the cops are lying bastards” angle that they seem to be pursuing.

A very tough sell indeed. If the body parts weren’t found on the farm, then where did they come from? The police planted them there after finding them at a different location? I’d think he’d be better using a “it was an alien clone who did it, I was imprisoned on a ufo the whole time” defense.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Q.E.D.

Just like one should read a whole thread before jumping to conclusions, as well. Wouldn’t you agree?

I don’t comprehend. I had read the whole of this thread up to the time of my post. What in particular didn’t you think I had read? :dubious:

[DSYoungEsq]

@Chronos

Or they could maintain that there weren’t body parts on the farm in the first place, and that the police are lying about that. One would hope that would be an even tougher sell, but similar tactics have been used in the past, and it would be consistent with the “the cops are lying bastards” angle that they seem to be pursuing.

Oh, nonsense. You might try a bit harder here, Chronos. Assume, just for a minute, that the defense attorneys aren’t total idiots, but rather doing whatever they can to save the neck of a client who, by all appearances, is guilty of the crimes charged. Having made the assumption that they are not idiots, then let’s look at why they might be doing what they are doing with the reported cross-examination. Which is what I did, and my theory is backed up partly by the cite from Spoons.

[Q.E.D]

@DSYoungEsq

I don’t comprehend. I had read the whole of this thread up to the time of my post. What in particular didn’t you think I had read? :dubious:

The post where I explained that I understood that the defense attorney in question wasn’t really an idiot, which was why I winked at the end of the post in question. Then again, you winked at the end of yours, too, so it’s always possible I’ve been whooshed.

[Rick]

@Chronos

Or they could maintain that there weren’t body parts on the farm in the first place, and that the police are lying about that. One would hope that would be an even tougher sell, but similar tactics have been used in the past, and it would be consistent with the “the cops are lying bastards” angle that they seem to be pursuing.

It is more than just bones. IIRC from last weeks Vancouver papers, the police found besides bones (In a spoiler box, don’t look if you are sqeemish)

[ul]
[li]A couple of heads in buckets in a freezer[/li][li]a dildo on the end of a pistol that had one victims DNA on it[/li][li]cosmetics and Rx belonging to the victims[/li][li]blood spatters in various parts of the trailer, DNA from the victims[/li][li]purses belonging to the victims[/li][/ul]
The pistol was the reason the police first went to the farm, they were investigating a weapons case.

If this is a frame by the police, it is a frame worthy of the Mona Lisa.

[Declan]

@Canadjun

See http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2007/01/30/3482276.html

Why is it particularly surprising that police lied to Pickton? Am I mistaken in my understanding that it is fairly standard practise for police to do things like exaggerate the evidence they have and tell various other lies to get suspects to admit to things during an interrogation?

Its a pretty fair example of why you have the right to silence and have an attorney present while doing a police interview(never interrogation )

I think up until they are under oath , the cops have a fair amount of lattitude in how they conduct interviews with suspects.
Declan

[Seven]

@Q.E.D.

Just like one should read a whole thread before jumping to conclusions, as well. Wouldn’t you agree?

Or the linked article that begins "NEW WESTMINSTER, B.C. "

As a side note: I’ve been reading up on this case as I just moved to New Westminster (and my cousin lives not far from the pig farm). There is a good write up at crimelibrary.com if anyone wants to know more about the case.

I have a feeling once the trial is over (all the details of the case won’t be released until it is over), we’ll all be shocked at what was found at the farm.