Regarding Colin Thatcher

This video is quite funny, making fun of the prison. But on the more serious side, we have the case of Colin Thatcher. Who is he? A former premier of the Province of Saskatchewan, in Canada.

Colin Thatcher, being a politician, became a media target when his former wife was found murdered. He was blamed, of course, since the relationship had become quite sour. Throughout his trial and his appeals, Thatcher has steadfastly maintained his innocence, which he admits is probably the reason he was not paroled until late 2006.

Sounds a little familiar doesn't it? Derik has also maintined his innocence for over 17 years now. He also cannot get parole. He also refused to confess to a crime he did not do. At least, in Colin Thatcher's case, there was some evidence, circumstantial as it was, that allowed the police to believe they may have been correct. Derik's case shows nothing like that at all.

I am looking forward to reading the book Colin has written about his wrongful conviction. I am expecting some very similar things between the investigation in that case and the investigation in Derik's case. A substantial lack of physical evidence, police coercion of witnesses, police fabrication of evidence, crown hiding evidence which could have helped the defense, and more.

This is yet another nail in the coffin of the laws of Canada in relaion to appeals on wrongful convictions. Once again, the case is made that Canada needs to take a page from Great Britain. We need to have an independent group look into these cases of potential wrongful convictions. We can go back many years and look at cases that have been proven to be wrong. The pattern is unmistakeable.

The largest issue by far has to be the appeals to the Minister of Justice. The entire process of appeal there is contaminated by the fact that the Minister is the overall boss of the entire process of evidence gathering, holding trials, and holding appeals. Despite the laws of Canada, the Minister can override any evidence of wrongful conviction and refuse to allow a closer look. Even when a closer look is made, the Minister can choose to overlook any mistakes found and hold the verdict. This system is about as fair as asking the dog who chases the cat to decide if chasing the cat is an ok thing to do.

There is something else in common between these two men. Neither Colin Thatcher nor Derik Lord has been abl to gain parole from the prison system because of their maintaining their innocence. In both cases, parole officers employed by the prison demanded a confession, an accouting for the crime, an apology for committing the crime, or some other detailing of the crime. This is wrong in more was than one. The issue that I have with this process is that Canada is a signatory to the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. Canada has agreed to this Body of Principles.

Principle 21

It shall be prohibited to take undue advantage of the situation of a detained or imprisoned person for the purpose of compelling him to confess, to incriminate himself otherwise or to testify against any other person.

Forcing a confesion before allowing the prisoner to apply for Parole violates this fundamental principle. Forcing a confession to gain support for any sort of release is also a gross violation of this fundamental principle.

If you want more details, check out the website:


Please write to the Minister of Justice, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0A1

Coach Elouise
604-794-3218
Skype coach_elouise
Email: lordelouise@gmail.com
rascal60@shaw.ca
http://coachelouise.com
http://twitter.com/coachelouise