PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Police bribery of 'informants' is not a thing of the past which magically disappeared forty or fifty years ago, which the police Chief seems to want us to believe. (If only it had) as Chief Robert Bruce suggests.This Blog is peppered with much more recent cases all over the Globe, in which police incentivized witnesses in order to get convictions - often at the expense of an innocent person. In a previous post of this Blog, I asked, "What do police informants have to do with forensic science? Investigative Reporter Pamela Colloff give us a clue when she writes - at the link below - "I’ve wanted to write about jailhouse informants for a long time because they often appear in troubled cases in which the other evidence is weak." That's my experience as well as a criminal lawyer and an observer of criminal justice. Given the reality that jurors - thanks to the CSI effect - are becoming more and more insistent on the need for there to be forensic evidence, it is becoming more and more common for police to rely on shady tactics such as use of police snitches, staging lineups, coercing, inducing, or creating false confessions out of thin air, procuring false eyewitness testimony (uncertified jailhouse testinomy' or concealing exculpatory evidence. I am very disappointed by the fact that the police have only released a summary of the report. Releasing that mere summary, raises a suspicion in my mind, that that there is material in that document that the police do not want us to see - a suspicion that they still have something to hide relating to the investigation that caused Robert Mailman and Walter Gillespie - two innocent men - decades of their lives. For shame!
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
————————————————————————————————————
STORY: "Mailman and Gillespie victims of police 'tunnel vision,' Saint John chief says," by Reporter Mia Urquhart, published by CBC News, New Brunswick, on March 7, 2025.
SUB-HEADING: "Saint John Police Force releases summary of report following year-long review."
PHOTO CAPTION: "Robert Mailman, left, and Walter Gillespie, who died last April, spent 40 years in prison for a murder they didn't commit."
GIST: "Saint John police had "tunnel vision" during their investigation of the 1983 murder of George Leeman, according to a year-long review of the case.
Once investigators focused on Robert Mailman and Walter Gillespie, they "looked for evidence that would support their case," Chief Robert Bruce said at a news conference on Friday.
Mailman and Gillespie were convicted of second-degree murder in 1984 and given life sentences. Both were eventually paroled. Gillespie died last April and Mailman, who will turn 77 next Friday, has terminal cancer and was taken to hospital on Thursday.
Ron Dalton, co-president of Innocence Canada, spoke with Mailman on Friday morning before the news conference.
He said Mailman told him if the Saint John Police Force "would stand up, take responsibility and admit that they made mistakes, and release the full unredacted report, he would be satisfied."
Dalton noted that "it wasn't a fulsome apology. It was some acknowledgement at least. And I'm hoping that'll be enough to give Mr. Mailman some peace of mind."Robert Mailman and Walter Gillespie, who were convicted of the 1983 murder of George Leeman, always maintained their innocence. Independent report concludes the main shortfall in investigation was ‘tunnel vision’ by police.
He said Mailman is very ill. Doctors told him they wanted him to spend a couple days in hospital.
"He said no, if he's dying, he's going to go home and die in his own comfort, on his own terms."
Dalton said he doesn't believe there's any reason not to release Farrah's entire report.
"Until we shine some daylight in some of these dark corners, you don't acknowledge the mistakes and you don't have a chance of fixing them."
From his own perspective, Dalton said he was surprised by the summary of the report.
"I hate to admit it, but I was pleasantly surprised. My expectation bar was set pretty low. I was expecting more of a whitewash than what I see there now."
\In January 2024, after a court ruled the two men had been victims of a miscarriage of justice, Bruce announced a review of the original police investigation.
On Friday, as he released a summary of that review, Bruce said officers made mistakes and for that he expressed "profound regret" to those involved "that these events unfolded as they did."
Investigator Allen Farrah, a retired RCMP officer, said in the summary, "The failure of this investigation is largely attributed to police tunnel vision."
Detectives "relied heavily on a witness whose cooperation and statements were inconsistent and lacked corroboration," Farrah said.
"Today, such outcomes are less likely due to significant changes in Law, rigorous policies governing law enforcement practices, increased checks and balances, and the arm's-length relationship between police and the Crown."
Bruce said many of the shortcomings of the original police investigation can be blamed on "historical factors no longer present in modern-day policing practices," and there was no "malicious intent to railroad people" on the part of the officers.
"They followed a line that they were following. Was it the best? No. Did they make mistakes? Yes. But there was no ill intent. So there would be no criminality to that," Bruce said.
Applying today's policing standards, however, is a different story. He said there would "absolutely" be consequences for a police officer who conducted an investigation like the one into Leeman's death. One of the standards that has changed since the early '90s governs disclosure of evidence to the defence.
In the Leeman case, an eyewitness was paid by police, and that information was never given to the defence teams.
Court documents noted that Saint John police had given a total of $1,800 — in addition to hotel and relocation costs — to a 16-year-old who testified in 1984 that he had witnessed Leeman's murder.
The witness, John Loeman Jr., later recanted his story to his own lawyer, to a journalist, in two letters and to a federal Justice Department lawyer looking into Mailman and Gillespie's case in 1998.
Case closed
As far as the original murder investigation goes, Bruce said that case is closed. They're not still looking for a killer.
He said one person pleaded guilty to manslaughter in 1984.
"We're not opening that case up," said Bruce. "We feel it's complete.
Janet Shatford pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter in exchange for her testimony against Mailman and Gillespie.
Bruce said the eyewitness "provided information that brought those three people to our attention. Miss Shatford, Mr. Gillespie and Mr. Mailman. Before that, they weren't even considered suspects.”
Bruce said the whole case was based on "an independent witness whose story was inconsistent and we couldn't get the collaborating evidence."
With modern-day policing standards, Bruce said that would never happen.
"It's very rare that one single eyewitness would carry the weight that it did back in those days."
The entire story can be read at:
mailman-gillespie-police-review-1.7477800
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
