Police sting operations

[Cappy]

Classic Mr. Big stings where the suspect admits to the crime will not get a conviction soley based on the confession. They require the corroboration of other evidence to support the confession.

There have been numerous occasions where suspects have admited or bragged about being involved in crimes to gain status amongst their circle of associates. The details of the investigation will sometimes reveal that the person admitting to the crime could infact not have been the person responsible. The investigators hold back information that only the persons involved would know, they will check out the background of the story of the confessor etc. It's not a simple slam dunk once the confession or admission is given.

If an investigator rail roads a suspect and willfuly ignores or fails to put forward evidence that can prove the suspects' innocence their carreer as an effective investigator is over. Their credibity in court is shot and the trust recieved from Crown Prosecutors is gone.

The safe guard is the discussions between Crown and the Defense counsel prior to trial. If ultimately the Crown doesn't feel there is enough evidence to proceed or that there is not the liklihood of a conviction then they will not proceed with the trial. So the ability of the police to forcefully convict someone doesn't really exist. Can it happen? Sure I guess anything could happen, but it would be extremely difficult to get a team of investigators to ignore evidence, a crown to ignore questions about the evidence and a defense counsel not willing to fight for their client.

For those of you who feel that it is easy for the police to gather evidence any time they choose guess again. The requirements and safe guards that have been put in place since the inception of the Charter have severely stymied the polices's ability to legally gather evidence that would be considered admissable in court. What used to take a couple of investigators a couple days to work on now takes a team weeks. Complex investigations now require an incredible amount of man hours and work. It's not CSI where things are solved in an hour.

[stormy]

look at David milgard they tried for 20yrs to get him to confess to killing that nurse he always sain he didnt do it
he spent over 20yrs in stonymountian pen before they found her killer living a nice little family life in woodbine
in the end they gave him 10 mil for his time

[bigbadjoe108]

Originally Posted by orca

From reading and watching videos on the subject one of the problems I have is how the justice system failed the people of the community. It is real easy to say that the two convicted people could have warned the RCMP but the justice system over the years had never protected anyone who had testified against Roszco . He had many times beaten and intimidated anyone who was against him or tried to get him charged. He had over 50 charges laid against him with few sticking. I feel that the Judges that had continually let him out on bail and dropped charges against him should be held accountable . Possible the shooting would never have happened if real jail time and no bail had been granted to an obvious violent criminal.

That is actually very accurate. An old friend of mine who was a retired member of the RCMP (he just passed away, rest his soul) was posted to Mayerthorpe in 1975(ish) and was warned about "Crazy Jimmy" back then. In that time he had attacked people, raped a young man and performed other terrible deeds, but walked as free as you and I.

The "Justice" system failed Rosco's victims for years, failed the people of Canada/Mayerthorpe and the mounties who had arrested Rosco so many times over it is crushingly depressing. It also fails the families of those men who have been arrested and now imprisoned.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that they are innocent and they should have been reasonable enough to know something was going on... It is just that Rosco should not have been up and walking free in the first place.

As for the actual heading of this thread, I think if done properly with the right mindset the "Mr. Big" sting can be a powerful weapon in the police inventory. But I also think that they should be held accontable if it is misused ( like a gun or baton).

[LongDraw]

Guys- There is a big difference with this case and some of the other cases used as an example.

If this big setup framed these two as the family claims then why did they both plead guilty to a Judge?

I can see some douc** bag bragging about a crime that he did not commit to an undercover cop trying to be a big tough guy, but if it goes as far as a sting and you are not guilty then why the guilty plea?

[raised by wolves]

The "average joe" they target is usually a dirt-bag, so why the concern over tactics?

[AxeMan]

Originally Posted by LongDraw

Guys- There is a big difference with this case and some of the other cases used as an example.

If this big setup framed these two as the family claims then why did they both plead guilty to a Judge?

I can see some douc** bag bragging about a crime that he did not commit to an undercover cop trying to be a big tough guy, but if it goes as far as a sting and you are not guilty then why the guilty plea?

I don't think there is any question that the two in this case were indeed guilty and thus the guilty plea to the judge. There is a big difference between this case and some of the others mentioned here. The others cases that were mentioned (such as Andy Rose) are just to show that Mr. Big stings can be problematic if taken too far.

[elkhunter11]

If an investigator rail roads a suspect and willfuly ignores or fails to put forward evidence that can prove the suspects' innocence their carreer as an effective investigator is over. Their credibity in court is shot and the trust recieved from Crown Prosecutors is gone.

The safe guard is the discussions between Crown and the Defense counsel prior to trial. If ultimately the Crown doesn't feel there is enough evidence to proceed or that there is not the liklihood of a conviction then they will not proceed with the trial. So the ability of the police to forcefully convict someone doesn't really exist. Can it happen? Sure I guess anything could happen, but it would be extremely difficult to get a team of investigators to ignore evidence, a crown to ignore questions about the evidence and a defense counsel not willing to fight for their client.

So explain what happened to Donald Marshall,and David Milgard.Both were innocent,yet both were convicted,and spent many years behind bars.In both cases the prosecutors and police were never punished for their parts in the wrongful convictions.

[Cappy]

I wasn't there so obviously can't say what happened, but one case was from 1970 and the other from 1971. Almost 40 years ago now and way before the implementaion of the Charter.

The rules have changed a lot since then, not only because of the Charter itself, but the 27 years of case law that has followed. So it's even different then 10 years ago which is different than 5 years ago etc. Case law is constantly evolving which requires changes in investigative tactics to remain with in the rules of admissability.

I'm not really up on the facts of either of those cases, but I would think that modern technology to gather evidence relating to DNA and blood splatter etc would have stopped those cases cold before they went to far and I don't think any of them were "sting" operations were they?

[elkhunter11]

I'm not really up on the facts of either of those cases, but I would think that modern technology to gather evidence relating to DNA and blood splatter etc would have stopped those cases cold before they went to far and I don't think any of them were "sting" operations were they?

Do a little research on the net,and you might be surprised at what you discover.Both men were convicted because the police and prosecutors were more interested in closing cases than in solving the crimes.Evidence was suppressed and false testimonies were coersed from witnessess by the police and prosecutors.There was wrongdoing in both cases,but nobody was ever held responsible for their participation in such wrongdoings.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

This happens. This is why every few years someone is freed on DNA evidence and we have to pay them through the nose for their lost years. Just because the police say someone did the crime doesn't mean that is always true, or that cops are immune from ignoring or hiding evidence to get what they want. Does it happen often? Who knows? Probably not, but it does happen.

It's interesting. We fight hard for our rights and personal liberties when it comes to gun control, but we seem to be very willing to quickly throw them away when it comes to other areas of the justice system and give the "state" all the rights and power they want. I don't hate defence attorneys or loath "technicalities". I'm glad they are around. I might need one someday. and "technicalities" are what keep the cops from walking into your house any darn time they feel like it.

The most dangerous statement around is "If you've done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to fear."

I have to agree with Oko on this one. Using a blatanly sympathetic case to justify the use of a procedure just opens it up to abuse down the road. Much like what the Lepine/polytechnique case did to gun laws. Public opinion sways far too easily in light of heart wrenching cases like these. I think in the Roszcko instance it was a case of the justice system trying to close the barn doors after the horses got out. They should have had Roszko in jail a long time ago.

[blackpheasant]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

This happens. This is why every few years someone is freed on DNA evidence and we have to pay them through the nose for their lost years. Just because the police say someone did the crime doesn't mean that is always true, or that cops are immune from ignoring or hiding evidence to get what they want. Does it happen often? Who knows? Probably not, but it does happen.

It's interesting. We fight hard for our rights and personal liberties when it comes to gun control, but we seem to be very willing to quickly throw them away when it comes to other areas of the justice system and give the "state" all the rights and power they want. I don't hate defence attorneys or loath "technicalities". I'm glad they are around. I might need one someday. and "technicalities" are what keep the cops from walking into your house any darn time they feel like it.

The most dangerous statement around is "If you've done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to fear."

x 2, I completely agree with you on this one Okeey, they have all the Power in the world, if they abuse that Power it is Frightening to say the least..

[Vindalbakken]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I don't think any of them were "sting" operations were they?

You're right. Nothing to do with the thread topic.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by raised by wolves

The "average joe" they target is usually a dirt-bag, so why the concern over tactics?

realized what I wrote added little to the discussion. LOL

[elkhunter11]

You're right. Nothing to do with the thread topic.

Perhaps they weren't the type of stings that most people think of,but they did involve coersed testimonies,and repressed evidence in order to close cases.They show just how far the police and prosecutors will go to close a case.Stings are just another tactic used to help close cases,and deals are often made with people to give evidence in order to gain favors for themselves,just like in the cases mentioned.

[Deercove]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I believe this is why this strategy is no longer used in the U.S...

Nor is it allowed to be used in the UK.

[Echo-Gecko]

they may say they did to earn "brownie points" with the supposed Mr. Big. The fellow this was used on in the Mayerthorpe case was clearly overwhelmed and excited about all the attention he was recieving (including from his new hot "girlfriend"). Not sure you can take what a person says in that situation as a truly voluntary and believable confession.

I am all for the mister BIG idea but just thought of something..Lets say buddy has a new "girlfriend" like the case with the Mayerthorp fellow.
So the RCMP checks him out but decides that he is not guilty and drops the investigation, so now the "girlfriend" should dump him too...
Now lets say he commits sucide because the pseudo gf left him.
Will the RCMP be held accountable?

[The Elkster]

My concern is with some of police/officials who are running these stings etc. and prosecuting. Not everyone of them has justice as their first and/or only priority. To some success and promotion is the most important and puting "someone" in jail is almost as important as having the right guy in jail. I use to blindly trust our justice system but I now realize it is full of humans with human trappings and weaknesses. We see cops going down daily for abuse and drugs and alcohol. They do an honorable job and most are great people but in the end they are just people like you and I and they do make mistakes. Some of the goings on in the past that has come out in the last little while is truly scary and a real wake up call.

I think a passive sting where a guy is put in place to be there if/when a suspect spills the beans is okay. Pressuring someone to confess through all kinds of coersion and trickery is not ethical and is a recipe for disaster. I believe in justice and harsh punishment for those clearly guilty but Sorry I do not believe in justice at all costs. Some will accept the collateral damage as part of the game...at least until they or their family ended up being on the short end of a wrongful conviction. I'll tell ya if I was milgard I'd want more than money...

[GMac]

Very well said Elkster.