[IPSM] JOHN MOORE: AN INNOCENT ABORIGINAL MAN STILL FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE AND

[mattm-b at resist.ca]

JOHN MOORE: AN INNOCENT ABORIGINAL MAN STILL FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE AND AND
FREEDOM IN CANADA


Justice and Freedom for John C. Moore invites you to a press
conference and  support rally June 10th, 2009, from 2 pm - 3 pm at the
Human Rights Monument, corner of Elgin and Lisgar Streets, Ottawa (In case
of rain it will be held in the Canadian Union of Postal Workers boardroom,
377 Bank Street.)

JOHN MOORE: AN INNOCENT ABORIGINAL MAN WRONGFULLY CONVICTED

John Moore is an Ojibiver First Nation who spent 10 years (from 1978 to
1988) in Millhaven Penitentiary for a murder he did not commit. John Moore
was convicted of 2nd degree murder in 1978 under a law which was later
repealed in 1987. The same evidence for which he spent time in jail would
no longer stand up in a court of law.

Institutionalized racism was a key factor leading to his false
conviction by an all-white jury. His wrongful conviction continues to
follow him today as he reports to a parole office on a monthly basis
and must be granted permission to leave the city of Sudbury. This is
impeding his freedom of movement and capacity to find meaningful work.
John has repeatedly asked for a review of his case, and  now  for a
pardon, but these requests have been ignored. John  is now planning to
take his struggle for justice to Ottawa on June 10th.

On June 10, 2009, at 1pm John, his lawyer, and supporters will be
coming to Ottawa for a media conference and rally to bring his
struggle for justice to the national media and federal politicians (who have
already received countless information packages from John). He is
asking for justice.

Innocent Aboriginal Man Seeking Judicial Review
for Wrongful Conviction

John Moore, an Ojibway man from Serpent River First Nation, spent 10
years (from 1978 to 1988) in Millhaven, for a murder he did not
commit.

John Moore is asking the Justice Department to review his
unconstitutional 2nd degree murder conviction.

After being sentence in 1978, the law under which he was tried was
repealed in 1987. "If he were to go to trial today on exactly the
same facts and evidence, the murder charge would never get past the
stage of a preliminary inquiry. He wouldn't even have to stand on it
today", said lawyer Glenn Sandberg.

John Moore has petitioned the federal justice department several times
to clear his name in the 1978 murder of a Sault Ste. Marie taxi cab
driver (Regina versus Moore). Court records show Moore was not present
at the crime scene, yet he was sentenced to 10 years in prison for
second degree murder because, the Crown argued, he spoke to the two
killers about the premeditated crime before it happened.

At the time of his conviction, Canadian law held that even though
there was evidence to show Moore was not at the murder scene but in
fact with other people, he could be found guilty of the crime because, on
an "objective standard," he ought to have known the crime could have
happened.

Moore argues that his conviction was a case of guilt by association.
Not only an association with the men who actually took a man's life,
but judicial prejudice that come with being a native man in a
non-native justice system. "There is no doubt in my mind that I was
convicted because of racism," said Moore, who was tried by an all-white jury.

Although Moore has exhausted all his avenues of appeal, there is a
section in the Criminal Code, which gives special powers to the
Minister of Justice to order an appeal or a new trial in special
circumstances.

Considering that several people convicted of murder were later found
to be innocent - David Milgaard, Donald Marshall, Guy Paul Morin - the
justice department must review cases such as Moore's.

Despite his release from prison, Moore stresses that punishment
continues with the stigmatization of a conviction of murder charge. He
continues to serve a sentence of life of parole reporting to officers
on a monthly basis and asking permission to leave the city of Sudbury
to return home. While he was in jail, Moore also lost several important
people in his life, including a son, his father, and grandmother.
Further, he faces inability to find meaningful work due to his
conviction.

For more information on John's struggle go to
http://homepages.cambrianc.on.ca/gbcooper/johnmoore/

More Background Information

The facts of the case are fairly simple.  John was not at the scene of
the crime, did not know in advance that there was going to be a crime,
and did not know after the fact that a crime had been committed.

The Crime

On the evening of the murder, John Moore was with his brother-in-law,
Richard Nichols.  Mr. Nichols agreed to give two men, Mr. Gordon
Stevens and Mr. Terrance Hogan a ride to downtown Sault Ste. Marie,
where the two men were dropped off.  Mr. Moore and Richard Nichols went
looking for parties and were seen together throughout the evening by a
number of people.  At approximately 4:00 a.m. the next morning, they met
the
two men they had given a ride to at a house party.  Sometime between the
time of their being dropped off downtown and their chance meeting at
the party, Mr. Hogan and Mr. Stevens robbed and killed a cab driver,
Don Lanthier.

The First Trial

The first court case took place in 1979.  Mr. Moore was charged with
first degree murder along with both Mr. Stevens and Mr. Hogan.  What
is really interesting about this is Mr. Nichols, who was with Mr.
Moore for most of the evening, had all charges against him dropped.  He was
the only "white man" in the quartet that was originally charged with the
crime, and he was the only one let off without a trial in return for
his testimony against his three co-accused.  Mr. Moore was convicted
on the evidence presented against him by the Crown Attorney on the charge
of second degree murder.  He won his appeal  and a new trial was ordered
for September 20, 1982.  At this time he was charged with second
degree murder.

The Second Trial

In the second trial, lots of information obtained from the witnesses
against Mr. Moore in the first trial was denied or forgotten by the
witnesses. Also,  information was disallowed by the judge of the case
that had been allowed in the first trial.  For example, Officer Burns'
notes from the day of the arrest were disallowed, as they had too many
missing and garbled pieces to be considered as true evidence.  The
three main witnesses, Mr. Nichols, Mr. Hogan and Officer Burns,  in
the case against Mr. Moore basically changed their stories so much as to be
almost a different story altogether.  Mr. Hogan's memory was so bad
that he couldn't remember making statements even after they were read
back to him.  Mr. Nichol's story was so inconsistent that the judge said,
"I think what Mr. Douglas is trying to do, for our benefit, is to go over
and see whether this is -- I think, under these circumstances, all of
us would like to know when we were getting the straight story and when
we were getting something that was deliberately left out, and when we
were getting something that was a cover-up. We've got so many
statements, and so many stories, he seemed to me, according to the
evidence that came in , he agreed to everything anybody would put to him. 
It would assist all of us if we knew what he says he believes to be the
truth."  This was said in regards to Mr. Nichols testimony, after he had
been testifying for some time.  He changed his story from the first trial
to the second so much, and so often that the Crown, the Judge and the
Defense had trouble deciding whose witness he was.

The reason John was charged with murder was not because he was at the
scene, which he wasn't, but rather was because the Crown Attorney had
a theory.  The Crown's theory was not that John had committed the
murder, but rather that he had masterminded the plan in which the cab
driver was killed.  The theory was that Mr. Gordon Stevens and Mr. Terrance
Hogan weren't intelligent enough to come up with the idea of robbing and
killing Mr. Lanthier on their own, they needed help.  As a matter of
fact, the theory was that Mr. Lanthier was killed because he was
dating Mr. Stevens' ex-girlfriend. Whether this is true or not is
irrelevant, as neither of  these two men put Mr. Moore at the scene of the
crime on the night of the murder.  They also did not indicate that Mr.
Moore
was in any way involved in the planning of the death of Mr. Lanthier.

Although there were other witnesses against Mr. Moore, these three
were the main witnesses against Mr. Moore, the only ones who could say
anything about what was seen, done, or said in regards to this crime.
As soon as there testimony became unbelievable, Mr. Moore and his
attorney both believed they had the Crown's case beat.  Despite the
judge's directions to the jury, who were all of white heritage, and
despite the Crown's inability to present a case against Mr. Moore that
put him at the scene or in charge of the planning of the crime, he
still found himself convicted of murder for a second time.

The Appeal

Mr. Moore's appeal of his second conviction was denied all the way
through the criminal justice system, and was denied a hearing by the
Supreme Court of Canada.