Paul Bernardo's ex-lawyer is acquitted of Obstruction of Justice charges,for hiding torture videos that Paul & Karla had made,but still outrageously faces possible loss of his license to practice law
Joe1orbit
A TINY bit of good news for one of the figures involved in the Paul
Bernardo/Karla Homolka serial sex/torture-killing case, in Canada. I must
admit, I haven't been following the obstruction of justice trial of Paul's
former lawyer, Kenneth Murray, very closely. I'm MUCH more interested in trials
that involve SK/MM PRINCIPALS, and recognized from the very beginning what an
utter SHAM trial this is. How DARE a LAWYER be punitively punished for trying
to DEFEND his client's innocence! The notion that any defense lawyer has an
OBLIGATION to BETRAY his or her client and turn over INCRIMINATING evidence to
his client's ENEMY, is ridiculous. The ONLY obligation a lawyer should have, is
to do WHATEVER it takes to get a court and jury to acquit their client.
As we should all know, lawyer Kenneth became aware of the existence of
VIDEOTAPES that SHOWS Paul & Karla violently abusing young girls. He wisely
chose to NOT reveal the existence of the tapes, recognizing that Paul's case
would be SERIOUSLY HURT if the takes were presented as evidence by the
prosecution. A PROPER, client-supporting decision by the lawyer, and SHOULD
have been totally legal and UNCHALLENGABLE in court.
But of course with this case being SO high profile, and Paul & Karla so
brutally demonized, prosecutors decided to put the LAWYER on trial, as a way to
try and TERRORIZE other lawyers, in the future, to NOT stand up for the privacy
and other legal rights of their clients. I was EXPECTING a conviction, to be
blunt. Karla and Paul have been decreed "demons" by Canadian society, and so I
expected that anybody directly LINKED to Paul and Karla, in terms of
"supporting" them, even as part of his JOB as a lawyer, could not and would not
receive a fair trial.
Well, as we learn below, I was wrong. In a JUDGE-ONLY ruling, lawyer Kenneth
WAS acquitted of obstructing justice. The judge says there IS a reasonable
doubt as to whether Kenneth INTENDED to "impede justice" by forever keeping the
torture videos secret. If this had been a JURY trial, Kenneth's chances of
winning would have been MUCH lower, in my strongly held opinion. Bravo to this
Candian judge, for being SOMEWHAT openminded, fair, and interested in honoring
the letter of the law. At the SAME time however, I feel that even IF the judge
felt that Kenneth DID intend to forever keep these torture videos secret, he
STILL deserved to be acquitted, because this lawyer's most logical GOAL was NOT
to "impede justice", but rather to PROTECT and properly serve his CLIENT'S best
interests, something he and ALL lawyers should be allowed to do, legally, with
no types of restrictions such as a "mandatory betrayal of attorney-client
privilege and privacy", which is the essential argument that prosecutors made,
using the INVALID "obstruction of justice" claim.
I'm glad Kenneth got acquitted, but of course my primary thoughts and hopes
are with Karla and Paul. Right now, Karla is about to become eligible for
PAROLE, she has already served 6 years in prison, and the Canadian legal system
is STRUCTURED in such a way that virtually ALL convicts in Karla's situation DO
win parole, placement in a halfway house, or the like, at this point, HALFWAY
through their sentences. It is OUTRAGEOUS that Karla is being singled out and
VERY likely will be DENIED all parole & halfway house placement requests,
SOLELY because the MEDIA and public in Canada have dubbed her the "most evil
woman in the country", via relentless demonization that SHOULD be illegal.
BUT, the news is NOT all good. Kenneth STILL faces the possibility of being
STRIPPED of his license to practice law in Canada! That is UNBELIEVABLE, that
for dpoing a GOOD and PROPER job of trying to PROTECT and save his client,
Kenneth might LOSE his license. This would have JUST as great a CHILLING effect
on lawyers throughout Canada, as a trial CONVICTION would have had.
Stay Strong, Karla and Paul!
Take care, JOE
The following appears courtesy of yesterday's Associated Press news wire:
Former Bernardo Lawyer Ken Murray Acquitted
ST. CATHARINES, Ontario (AP) - Kenneth Murray's five years of ``hell on earth''
ended abruptly Tuesday as a judge acquitted the former lawyer for sex killer
Paul Bernardo of obstructing justice.
Ontario Superior Court Justice Patrick Gravely said there was a reasonable
doubt Murray intended to impede the course of justice by forever keeping
Bernardo's gruesome sex-and-torture videotapes from those trying convict him.
Under Canada's Criminal Code, it must be proven an accused willfully obstructed
justice to be convicted.
Because of a dearth of similar cases, the Murray trial sets a precedent for
lawyers who are forced to deal with evidence that is incriminating but also
potentially helpful to their client's defense.
Gravely said it's possible, albeit hard to believe, that Murray intended to use
Bernardo's ``indescribably horrible'' videotapes to defend his client.
That casts doubt on the Crown's position that Murray - who held the tapes for
more than 16 months after plucking them from Bernardo's St. Catharines home in
May 1993 - planned to forever keep them secret.
AP-NY-06-13-00
---------------------------------------------
The following appears courtesy of yesterday's Canadian Press news wire:
June 13, 2000
Former Bernardo lawyer Ken Murray acquitted of obstructing justice
ST. CATHARINES, Ont. (CP) -- Kenneth Murray's five years of "hell on earth"
ended abruptly Tuesday as a judge acquitted the former lawyer for sex killer
Paul Bernardo of obstructing justice.
Ontario Superior Court Justice Patrick Gravely said there was a reasonable
doubt Murray intended to impede the course of justice by forever keeping
Bernardo's gruesome sex-and-torture videotapes from those trying convict him.
Under Canada's Criminal Code, it must be proven an accused willfully
obstructed justice to be convicted.
Because of a dearth of similar cases, the Murray trial sets a precedent for
lawyers who are forced to deal with evidence that is incriminating but also
potentially helpful to their client's defence.
Whoops of joy went up from the dozens of friends and family who gathered in
the oak-trimmed courtroom as a visibly relieved Murray enjoyed a lingering
handshake with his grinning lawyer, Austin Cooper.
Gravely said it's possible, albeit hard to believe, that Murray intended to
use Bernardo's "indescribably horrible" videotapes to defend his client.
That casts doubt on the Crown's position that Murray -- who held the tapes for
more than 16 months after plucking them from Bernardo's St. Catharines home in
May 1993 -- planned to forever keep them secret.
"I have no difficulty with the proposition that he may well have believed
under the circumstances he had no legal duty to disclose the tapes until
trial," Gravely said in a 52-page written decision.
"In the context of the whole of the evidence, Murray's testimony, I find,
raises a reasonable doubt as to his intention to obstruct justice," he said.
"I find him not guilty."
Before the acquittal, Murray and his family listened nervously to Gravely's
scathing indictment of how Murray handled the tapes of Bernardo and ex-wife
Karla Homolka raping four teenaged girls, including murder victims Kristen
French and Leslie Mahaffy.
The fact that Crown authorities hadn't seen Bernardo and Homolka on tape
forcing their victims to commit "the grossest sexual perversions" affected
every facet of their efforts to prosecute the couple, the judge said.
"Once the jury viewed the tapes, Bernardo was left with no defence to anything
but the murder charges and little chance of a successful defence on those," he
said.
"Concealment of the tapes had the potential to infect all aspects of the
criminal justice system . . .Murray's concealment of the critical tapes was an
act that had a tendency to pervert or obstruct the course of justice."
During his seven-week trial, Murray said he had planned to use the tapes to
discredit Homolka's claims that she was a battered wife forced to submit to the
sexual demands of her violent, psychotic husband.
His hope was the tapes would help scuttle Homolka's plea-bargain deal with the
Crown, which saw her sentenced to just 12 years in prison on two counts of
manslaughter in exchange for testimony against Bernardo.
Murray was facing 10 years in prison if convicted.
"I wasn't breathing," Murray's 18-year-old daughter Linzi said of the moments
before her dad was acquitted.
"I was thinking the worst. It sounded so negative in the last couple of
minutes."
Murray's wife Sharon said her husband told Linzi the night before that he's
proud of the way he handled Bernardo's case and wouldn't change a thing if he
had it to do all over again.
"He said to her: 'I'm very proud of what I did and I would not do a thing
differently now than I did three years ago or seven years ago,"' Sharon Murray
said.
"Not a thing, not a thing differently."
Linzi wept tears of joy as the family gathered inside the main door of the
courthouse, away from the glare of the battery of television cameras jostling
outside for a glimpse of the family.
"It's so nice that it's going to get out there now that he's not what he's
been portrayed as," she said, wiping a tear from her reddened face.
Crown prosecutor Ian Scott expressed disappointment in the verdict but said
Gravely's ruling sets a precedent for lawyers and how they handle evidence.
"It would be very difficult for anyone to argue from now on that the
suppression of physical evidence is not a crime," said Scott, pointing out
Gravely made it clear that such evidence is not protected by solicitor-client
privilege.
"The precedent is now set."
Scott said he intends to read the ruling and consult with senior Crown
authorities before deciding whether to appeal the decision.
Outside the courthouse, Murray and Cooper called for new rules governing how
lawyers handle evidence that is both incriminating to a client but also
potentially helpful for the defence.
"I'd like to think that some direction can be given to other lawyers from this
ruling in my case, and then hopefully we'll have something a little more
codified," Murray said.
"I'm pleased for everybody involved that it's now over. Now, hopefully
everyone can get on with their lives."
Cooper, whose arguments turned largely on the absence of such legal guidance,
urged politicians and the Law Society of Upper Canada to get to work.
"There's a need for rules," he said. "Hopefully, the Law Society or the
legislature or Parliament will do something about the rules, because the rules
up until now haven't been very clear."
Murray and family have endured "hell on earth" for the last five years, Cooper
added. "Hopefully this will be the end of the matter."
Sadly, it's far from over for the families of Bernardo's victims, said lawyer
Tim Danson, who has represented the Mahaffy and French families in their battle
to keep the tapes from ever being played in public.
"For them, until the Parliament of Canada amends the Criminal Code to keep
this kind of evidence beyond the reach of the public and the media, the
families -- like the sword of Damocles -- are going to be exposed and
vulnerable," Danson said.
There is still the matter of author Stephen Williams, fighting a charge that
he illegally viewed the tapes, as well as Bernardo's right to apply for early
parole in 2008 and statutory release in 2018, he added.
"Probably the videotapes will be even more important then."
Danson also said the families -- who were keeping a low profile Tuesday --
find it impossible to believe the tapes could ever have been used in Bernardo's
defence.
"Anyone who has viewed those videotapes cannot possibly come to that
conclusion."
During the course of the trial, Gravely never viewed the videotapes in
question, although he listened to Cooper read graphic details of the tapes into
the record for the better part of two days.
Danson wouldn't say whether he thought Gravely should have watched the tapes
before making his ruling, but did say the transcripts are a poor substitute for
understanding their power.
"You can view these things in private without having public access to it," he
said. "If, in any assessment of this case, you need to evaluate the full thrust
of those tapes, you must view them."
The trial saw an often fierce and passionate debate about the ethical and
moral dilemmas of the legal profession, argued by veteran litigators at both
the counsel tables and the witness stand.
During the trial, court heard how Murray, following Bernardo's handwritten
instructions, pulled six videotapes -- missed by police during a 71-day search
-- from their hiding place in a pot light in Bernardo's bathroom ceiling.
After viewing the tapes, Murray said he came to the conclusion the only way he
could defend Bernardo was to discredit Homolka, whose eyewitness testimony
comprised the backbone of the Crown's case.
That plan -- Murray's legal team called it the "black widow defence" -- fell
apart in 1994 as authorities fast-tracked Bernardo's case and cancelled a
series of preliminary hearings.
Murray was ultimately forced to abandon the case and surrender the tapes to
lawyer John Rosen in September 1994 after Bernardo began to insist he wanted
the tapes suppressed.
Whether Murray will be allowed to continue practising law is still undecided.
The Law Society of Upper Canada will set a date June 19 for a future
disciplinary hearing. If the society finds Murray guilty of professional
misconduct, disbarment would be the ultimate penalty.
*************************************
Join the Joe1orbit Serial and Mass Murder Mailing List! For more information on
my Mailing List, please visit:
http://hometown.aol.com/joe1orbit/myhomepage/index.html
**************************************