Crime & Punishment

Crime and justice comment and analysis

Air India – Demand for Public Inquiry

with 6 comments

I’m a little puzzled by these incessant demands for a public inquiry in the Air India case.

Are they hoping to find out who did it? Trust me, Malik and Bagri are intrinsically involved in the conspiracy in my opinion even if the courts ruled the Crown did not prove its case. It’s a far cry from being adjudicated “innocent.” In Scotland there is a third verdict available called “Not Proven.” That might have been a far better verdict in this case.

What else might they learn? That CSIS and the RCMP didn’t speak to each other? Wasn’t that the very reason for the creation of CSIS? Because the MacDonald Commission decided the Mounties handling federal law enforcement and national security was a clash of interests.

Everyone’s so concerned about the destroyed wiretaps. They should perhaps have a look at the legislation governing CSIS. The agency took the action the law requires of them. So what else is there? What other reasons are there to waste $20, $30 or 40 million?

Certainly, there are none that I can think of. Any suggestion by some of the members of the Indo Canadian community that the result might have been different had the majority of people in the plane been white is ludicrous in the extreme. Especially when the purveyors of that argument throw in the “R” word.

If anything, some credence might be given to he argument but only because another community likely would have cooperated more fully with the investigators than the Sikh community did in the months and years immediately following the terror attack on Flight 182.

The RCMP did what they could in all of this. The Crown did their best given the limitations of an uncooperative community. And, the right people were in the dock. One wonders what might be learned by calling an expensive and redundant public inquiry.

Leo Knight

Advertisements

Written by Leo Knight

March 28, 2005 at 4:08 am

Posted in Crime & Punishment

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Read the judgement:

    “I began by describing the horrific nature of these cruel acts of terrorism, acts which cry out for justice. Justice is not achieved, however, if persons are convicted on anything less than the requisite standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite what appear to have been the best and most earnest of efforts by the police and the Crown, the evidence has fallen markedly short of that standard.”

    And you said: “Trust me, Malik and Bagri are intrinsically involved in the conspiracy in my opinion even if the courts ruled the Crown did not prove its case. It’s a far cry from being adjudicated “innocent.” “

    It was MARKEDLY SHORT. It wasnt even close, the judge had no problems making his decision because it was so obvious. Trust you? Why? What do you know that the judge didnt know?

    Anonymous

    March 28, 2005 at 9:28 pm

  2. Hey Mr Or Mrs anonymous,

    Apparently the Judge didn’t know that all the Crown’s key witnesses had passed polygraph examinations prior to the laying of charges.

    This would be standard operating procedure in a case of this magnitude. The Police wouldn’t just take somebody’s word for it and pay for people’s protection if they were just trying to lead them down the garden path.

    Apparently the judge must have thought that the wife of the only person to have been convicted of anything in this case was entitled to receive cash payments, free education for all her children and other benefits from one of the accused. In his opinion, this wasn’t hush money. I would like to know what he thought it was. That smells as good as a skunk wearing an old jock strap !

    It appears to me that what fell “markedly short” in this case was good judgement on the part of the Judge. There was ample evidence to convict in this case but the Judge chose to ignore and discredit the evidence of Crown witnesses, who we now know were being truthful.

    It would not be the first case of a Judge wanting to look the other way because of fear of retribution from known terrorists and their supporters. It strikes me that the verdict was handed down shortly after a Judge in Atlanta was murdered and a Judge in Chicago had her husband and mother murdered in her own home.

    From having spent much time in courtrooms, I can tell you that Judges are as self serving a group as you will find. Give them an opportunity to slither out of something and they will. This Judge did exactly that. He knew a guilty verdict would have resulted in an appeal and if there’s one thing Judges hate is having their cases overturned on appeal.

    Everybody knows that a Crown appeal would cost Millions in taxpayer dollars and I wouldn’t be surprised at all that the Crown will be told to stay away from an appeal.

    Judges from BC have earned their reputation across this country as having produced some of the worst case law and most lenient sentences ever handed down. This Judge simply kept a long standing tradition alive.

    C.J.

    Anonymous

    March 28, 2005 at 10:50 pm

  3. Just wondering why these guys would choose trial by judge as opposed to trial by jury.Does this make sense?

    james

    April 14, 2005 at 12:37 am

  4. I don’t think it was their choice per se James. The Crown went by way of direct indictment and I suspect, while they had a choice, the reality was that any jury would have been driven by emotion of 331 dead people and perhaps not been as objective as the defense would have wanted. Just my opinion.
    Leo Knight

    Leo Knight

    April 14, 2005 at 6:48 am

  5. Did you hear the one about the Malik mole trying to infiltrate the family of an RCMP officer on the Surrey anti-gang squad?

    A young female working within one of Malik’s companies “met” the son of a gang squad officer at the bar and got to know him.

    Was an RCMP laptop the real target?

    Anonymous

    May 2, 2005 at 3:18 am

  6. REGARDING:

    Hey Mr Or Mrs anonymous,

    Apparently the Judge didn’t know that all the Crown’s key witnesses had passed polygraph examinations prior to the laying of charges.

    Horse pucks! There was never any requirement for polygraph nor were any done. Monday morning quarterback bull@%&t.

    Anonymous

    May 23, 2005 at 6:40 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: