SPECIAL PROSECUTOR RELIED UPON DISCREDITED EXPERT IN MICHAEL BRYANT CASE

September 27, 2016


CALL FOR EXPERT ANALYSIS REPORTS TO BE RELEASED

image

When special prosecutor Richard Peck withdrew all charges against former Ontario Attorney General, Michael Bryant resulting from Bryant’s killing of Darcy Allan Sheppard, he failed to warn the court and the public about the credibility and bias of the prime video expert in the case.

Peck based his decision in large part due to the analysis of former Vancouver police officer Grant Fredericks whose work has been scathingly discredited as flawed, and biased in favour of law enforcement officials.

Grant Fredericks was a Vancouver police officer from 1988 until 2000. He is now an instructor at the FBI National Academy, an advisor to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and a principal instructor for the non-profit Law Enforcement and Emergency Services Video Association (LEVA).

Fredericks’ work has come under fire on both sides of the border as it has been repeatedly discredited. In the case of the death of Robert Dziekanski at the hands of the RCMP, Richard Peck acted as the special prosecutor. The Dziekanski case resulted in the dismissal of [Fredericks’] expert testimony and raised questions about “his cozy relationship with the Vancouver police.”

In a United States case involving the death of Otto Zehm, also at the hands of the police, the Justice Department argued that Fredericks offered his services to police and came to his conclusions before he finished analyzing the video of the incident.

The Center for Justice in Spokane, Washington reported:

“The gist of the Justice Department’s rebuttal is that Fredericks has a long record of bias in favor of embattled police officers and police departments, and that he regularly shapes his expert testimony accordingly.”

These shocking revelations raise credibility and bias issues surrounding the expert video evidence in the case against Michael Bryant. They create a perception of conflict of interest and special treatment for the former chief administrator of the justice system in the province.

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Ghomeshi v Bryant

April 24, 2016

 

IMG_GHB-1

After the trial and acquittal of Jian Ghomeshi much has been written and spoken regarding his lawyer Marie Henein and her work with another famous client, former Ontario Attorney General, Michael Bryant. In both cases the media attributed Henein’s success to her ability to find exculpatory evidence supporting her clients. The question that has not been addressed is why did Ghomeshi’s case go to trial but not Bryant’s?  Why did Henein reveal her entire defence to the Crown in Bryant’s case, in order to avoid a trial but not in Ghomeshi’s case?

 

The simple answer would be that Henein felt the evidence, against Jian Ghomeshi (including the exculpatory evidence she had uncovered) was stronger than the evidence against Michael Bryant. The Crown in Ghomeshi’s case went to trial because they believed they had a reasonable prospect of conviction. The Crown in Bryant’s case, represented by special prosecutor Richard Peck and his Ontario agent Mark Sandler determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

 

Both defendants had the same lawyer, so let’s compare the strength of the evidence in each case.

Read the rest of this entry »