The "Confidential Memo" Kingston Police Went To Court To Suppress;

"MAKE NO MISTAKE THE RIGHT PERSON (LOUISE) IS ON TRIAL. IF WE WANT JUSTICE TO BE SERVED, AND HER FOUND GUILITY (SIC); IT IS AN ABSOLUTE MUST THAT WE GE (SIC) ON TRACK, AND WORK TOWARDS THIS COMMON GOAL."

FROM "CONFIDENTIAL MEMO" FROM OFFICER IN CHARGE OF INVESTIGATION OF LOUISE REYNOLDS TO CROWN ATTORNEY;

A confidential memo which the Kingston Regional police force tried to suppress was introduced into evidence at the Goudge inquiry earlier today.

The Charles Smith Blog reported in an earlier posting that Associate Chief Justice Dennis O'Connor had turned down a motion brought by the Kingston Police Service.

The force wanted O'Connor to declare that two documents relating to the prosecution of Sharon's mother cannot be considered by the Goudge inquiry because they are privileged.

(See earlier posting: Goudge Inquiry: Sharon's Case Part Six: Kingston police lose bid to keep out document.)

The document released today was described by O'Connor as a memorandum from a senior officer on the investigation to the Crown Attorneys prosecuting the case".

The memo is dated April 18, 2000.

O'Connor ruled that the memo may shed light on the dangers of "tunnel vision" in criminal investigations and prosecutions where pediatric forensic pathology plays an integral role in proving the case - particularly where there is a disagreement among the experts or the experts are revising their opinions.

The memo is addressed to Crown Attorney Ed Bradley and Assistant Crown Jennifer Ferguson.

It is signed by Det/Sgt. Andy Bird.

"I am writing this short note out of profound concern for the Louise Reynold's matter," it begins.

"Eighteen to twenty hour work days have been the all too common reality of this investigation since 1997.

It has taken its toll on all police officers involved. I'm sure to some degree it has affected your office as well.

However of late, I have detected a certain air of animosity between the Crown and the Police. I have also noted a tinge of hostility between the involved Crowns, and sadly I have noted some bickering among the police officers themselves.

If we are to be successful, we have to work as a team. We have to respect each other's input and views.

Make no mistake the right person (Louise) is on trial. If we want justice to be served, and her found guility (sic); it is an absolute must that we ge (sic) on track, and work towards this common goal.

It would seem that the pre-trial motions to this date, have not really gone as planned. The police officers that have testified all share, a sense of frustration, that they have been hanging in the wind, without Crown support.

Of particular concern to the police and I'm sure the Crown, is the conduct of judge Lally. Very informed sources indicate that his actions at the pre-trial are not isolated incidents. It is these sources opinions (non-police), that if the right people were informed of his mental instability, he would not be on the bench.

This I put to you is a grave concern and something for the Crown's office to address.

The potential for a mis-trial at every bend in the road, with this man, is a very real possibility.

On the plus side, If (and I'm told it is likely) this trial does not go ahead until fall or next spring, fate might dictate that he might not be available, and we would be blessed with a judge whose faculties are intact.

I'm told that there is no doubt that at least Louise's first two statements will make the grade, and that she was lawfully arrested. I'm also advised that common sense has prevailed and yet another police officer (4th) (myself) will not be required to relate the same information.

I wish you luck today! I'm at a funeral, acting as a pall bearer this date. Tomorrow I am having minor surgery (in & out). It is good that you are moving on with other matters after today; Because I would not be available at any rate.

I do appeaciate (sic) being kept abreast of what goes on day-to-day. My voicemail is (number provided) and I do checkt (sic) it.

Hopefully in the near future, we can sit down and discuss, our shared concerns. I definitely (sic) would like to touch on the ones I have related in this memo.

Please don't take offence to what I have written. It is from the heart, and with a common goal in mind.

Signed: Det/Sgt. A. Bird;

Prosecutor Bradley told the Inquiry that he was "surprised" by Bird's letter because he thought that the Crown had been doing "reasonably well" in pre-trial motions, he didn't have any particular concerns about Justice Lally, and he was relating well to his junior counsel on the case.

Rather than sending Bird a written reply, he said he waited a few days before calling him on the phone and assuring him that there was no problem with his co-counsel and that he would, "keep him apprised."

Associate Justice O'Connor rightfully points out that the memo demonstrates "tunnel vision" on the part of the force.

There is also the reality that if Louise Reynolds did not have the support of a team of dedicated lawyers who had the guts to take on the force she might now be serving a life sentence for murdering a daughter who was savaged by a pit bull.

In Canada, the police are supposed to do their job in an even-handed way - and that means considering evidence that points to innocence as well as guilt.

But Louise Reynolds now has reason to believe that the Kingston force was prepared to crush her at all costs.

That must be every innocent person's nightmare...the adversarial system of criminal justice in Ontario at its worse.

The good news is that Prosecutor Bradley - who brought a fresh outlook to a case which had been on-going for several years - didn't share the police obsession with finding Reynolds guilty.

Instead he acted independently in the highest tradition of the prosecution bar - and as the law requires - by withdrawing the charges against Reynolds because there was clearly no reasonable prospect of conviction.

He refused to take orders from the police.

This humble Bloggist is most disturbed by the fact that the police were so determined to find Reynolds guilty - (and to get the lengthy investigation over with) -that they forgot that Louise Reynolds might simply be a bereaved mother whose child had died a horrible death.

Where was their humanity?

Where was their willingness to consider other possibilities than Reynold's guilt?

Louise Reynold's paid a huge personal price for the police force's short-sighted investigation.

What price did the police have to pay?

(See previous posting: Sharon's case: Part Three; Kingston police defended Dr. Charles Smith after murder charge withdrawn);

Harold Levy...hlevy15@gmail.com;