Group that's supposed to fight for wrongly convicted dropped ball

Group that's supposed to fight for wrongly convicted dropped ball
by Doug Millroy, Editor Emeritus of The Sault Star
originally in the Sault Star



In May of last year it appeared John Moore had found a formidable ally in his fight to overturn a conviction for attempted murder under a law that is no longer on the books, having been overturned in 1987.

AIDWYC, the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted, had informed him that it was going to review his case.

One year later, those hopes have been dashed.

Win Wahrer, director of client services with AIDWYC, recently wrote Moore that the association wouldn't be taking his case.

"AIDWYC's Canadian Convictions Assessment Group discussed your case in great detail, but concluded there was no fresh evidence to support a

s. 696.1 application to the federal

justice minister," Wahrer wrote.

"Regrettably, AIDWYC is not able to assist you in the furtherance of your case without fresh evidence."

Moore responded to Wahrer that the letter was a sad disappointment after the warm welcome he received at AIDWYC's conference last year.

And Clarissa Lassaline wrote to Wahrer, saying that Justice and Freedom for John Moore, the group that has long supported Moore "is stunned and deeply troubled by AIDWYC's decision not to take on the wrongful conviction of Mr. Moore.

"It is difficult to comprehend that an advocacy group such as AIDWYC has decided to turn its back on a clear case of wrongful conviction, especially since AIDWYC's stated primary mandate is to review and support claims of innocence in homicide cases."

I agree and I am having trouble with Wahrer's comment that AIDWYC is unable to assist Moore because there is no fresh evidence.

It had to know this when it opted to review his case as Moore, in his 34-year fight to clear his name, had never made any claim as to having fresh evidence.

He is fighting the injustice of his conviction, which I thought was what AIDWYC was all about.

Cab driver Donald Lanthier was robbed and murdered by Gordon Stevens and Terry Hogan in a ravine on Third Line in 1978. Moore, who was not present, but was with Stevens and Hogan earlier in the day, was convicted on the basis of a section of the Criminal Code that said any party to one crime in which another is committed "ought to have known" the probable consequences.

Nobody today could be convicted under the law, which saw him serve 10 years in jail, because the Supreme Court of Canada in 1987 struck it down.

It overturned a murder conviction against Yvan Vaillancourt, a New Brunswicker who had participated in a robbery of a pool hall in which his accomplice shot and killed a man, on the basis that he was not responsible or liable for the death since he could not have "objectively foreseen it."

Ironically, the same court had denied Moore's appeal in 1985, his lawyer, Glenn Sandburg, essentially putting forward the same argument.

Since Moore wasn't at the scene, it's hard to comprehend how the court didn't come to the same conclusion in his case.

Over the years Moore has added racial discrimination to his appeal for justice.

As the basis for his claim that the justice system was racially biased, he points to the fact that Rich Nichols, his brother-in-law who was originally a suspect along with him as they had been together most of the day, including the time with Stevens and Hogan, was never charged.

Moore, Stevens and Hogan were native. Nichols was white.

The s. 696.1 (1) to which AIDWYC refers is, "An application for ministerial review on the grounds of miscarriage of justice may be made to the Minister of Justice by or on behalf of a person who has been convicted of an offence under an Act of Parliament."

I don't see anything there that calls for new evidence.

Even if it does require it, I believe an organization such as AIDWYC would have enough clout with the justice department that it could bring about the relief Moore seeks, which is now mainly to be able to lead a normal life.

As a convicted murderer, even though he has served his sentence he will be on parole for the rest of his life, which means he has to report to a parole officer at regular intervals and must always ask for permission to travel from his city or town of residence.

And if he gets into trouble of any kind, his parole could be revoked.

I don't think anyone expects that in every case where a law is changed or struck down that the justice system revisit all who were convicted under it, since in most cases it would involve people convicted of crimes not involving a life sentence who have already served their time and have moved on with their life.

But I believe that an exception should be made in a situation such as that facing Moore or any others still alive who were caught under the law as it stood.

As for AIDWYC, I think it dropped the ball in Moore's case, its focus too narrow.

But then that is maybe because I have always considered it to be a stronger fighter for justice for the wrongly convicted than it really is.

Doug Millroy, editor emeritus of The Sault Star, can be reached at millroy@shaw.ca.

Sudburians honoured in late NDP leader's name

Sudburians honoured in late NDP leader's name
By Carol Mulligan, from The Sudbury Star

A short time ago, John Moore hadn't heard about the Jack Layton Award for Social Justice.

So it came as a surprise to learn that a group that has been fighting for him for years was nominated for the honour.

Justice and Freedom for John Moore, a group of a half dozen or so people fighting to clear the Sudbury man's name, is one of three groups short-listed for the Outstanding Achievement Award in the program named after the late New Democratic Party leader.

Myths and Mirrors and the Ontario Coalition Against Replacement Employees have also been nominated in that category.

The Jack Layton Award for Social Justice, the first of its kind in Canada, is a program organized by Sudbury New Democrats to recognize outstanding community members who work to build a more equal society.

"Jack Layton's commitment to social justice touched the nation," said Richard Eberhardt, president of the Sudbury NDP. "In his name, we are proud to recognize those who are carrying on his work."

Three individuals were nomi nat e d for the Leadership award in the program -- Laurentian University professor Gary Kinsman, Leo Therrien, executive director of Maison Vale Hospice, and longtime activist Laurie McGauley.

Three people were nominated for the Youth award, which recognizes people who encourage awareness of social justice among their peers.

Laurentian University labour student Nicole Beaulieu, Laurel O'Gorman, president of the teaching assistants' union at Laurentian, and Max Merrifield, a rap artist involved with the Occupy Sudbury movement, were short-listed for that award.

Moore has tried for decades to clear his name after being convicted June 30, 1978, in the death of taxi driver Donald Lanthier in Sault Ste. Marie.

Moore, an Ojibwe, was convicted of second-degree murder under a section of the Criminal Code that was later ruled unconstitutional. No one in his position today would be charged with a similar crime, let alone convicted of it.

Moore said Wednesday that a handful of people meet monthly to discuss how to have him exonerated. He will speak this weekend to students at Waterloo University about his case and has several speaking engagements at Laurentian University in coming weeks.

Moore and his supporters are asking for a review of his conviction.

Wyman McKinnon, former president of CUPE Local 4705 representing inside employees at the City of Greater Sudbury, is a member of OCARE (Ontario Coalition Against Replacement Workers).

The group supports the efforts of Nickel Belt New Democrat MPP France Gelinas to have the province pass legislation prohibiting the hiring of replacement workers during labour disputes.

Merrifield said he was "absolutely honoured and a little bit shocked to be nominated for ... an award in the name of such a fierce leader and fighter for social justice as Jack Layton. To even be short-listed is an absolute honour."

The awards will be presented at a dinner March 1 at the Steelworkers' Hall.

Tickets cost $100 for two or $60 each. There will be a silent auction at the event and proceeds from that will be donated to charities of the award-winners' choosing.

Tickets are available by phoning 705-562-1239.

Two Audio Interviews With John Moore

Please check out these radio interviews done with John by Dee Blues of The Prison Radio Show on CKUT 90.3 fm based in Montreal.

The first is from December 2010, and the second from June 2011. The files are in MP3 format.

If you are on FaceBook, you can become a fan of The Prison Radio Show by clicking here. You can also email the show at prison(AT)ckut.ca.

Association gives renewed hope to man fighting to clear his name

Association gives renewed hope to man fighting to clear his name
by Doug Milroy, from The Sault Star, May 21, 2011.

John Moore, who bills himself as "an innocent aboriginal man fighting for justice and freedom in Canada since 1978," may possibly have found a formidable ally.

The Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC) has decided to review his case.

Moore was convicted of second-degree murder in the slaying of cab driver Donald Lanthier in 1978, even though he was not at the scene. Crown Attorney Norman Douglas convinced a jury that, because Moore had associated with Gordon Stevens and Terry Hogan, the actual killers, earlier in the day, he knew or ought to have known a robbery with possible dire results was going to take place.

Knew or ought to have known, strange as it may seem now, was a law that was in the Criminal Code of Canada at the time.

It was found faulty and removed from the Criminal Code after the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the 1987 appeal of Yvan Vaillancourt, who was actually at the scene when his accomplice shot and killed a man during a robbery at a pool hall.

Ironically the Supreme Court, for reasons that remain

known only to its members, dismissed Moore's similar appeal three years earlier.

AIDWYC became involved in Moore's case after a friend of his, Ritchy Dube, emailed it on March 14 asking if there was "any reason why your organization is not behind the John Moore case, the aboriginal man from Sudbury convicted of murder under an old law. Surely his case merits advocacy and support. He is garnering lots of support, so it is puzzling why you are not involved. Any words?"

AIDWYC replied to Dube the same day it received his email. Win Wahrer, director of client services, told Dube that Moore had contacted the association several years ago, but attempts to get in touch with him were unsuccessful.

As it cannot look at a case until an individual requests it do so, it sent along an application form for Moore to fill out.

Having now received the formal request, Wahrer has asked Moore for "all documents relevant to your case but not limited to the following:

"Preliminary transcripts, trial transcripts, appeal factums (both Crown and defence), expert opinions/reports, investigative reports/notes, witness statements (including any statements you made to police), documentation of fresh evidence.

"Once your case file has been received, we will begin the process of assigning your case to a volunteer case reviewer, whose job it will be to review your case on behalf of AIDWYC."

AIDWYC's involvement has given renewed hope to a man who has been fighting, to no avail to this point, to clear his name since he was released from prison in 1987.

The amount of paper he has distributed in fighting the justice system has to be approaching a ton. In one photograph in a Sudbury newspaper he is shown dropping three large boxes of files on former MP Diane Marleau's desk. I have, or did have until some recent weeding, a stack of material about 40 centimetres high.

When laws are overturned, those convicted under the law as it stood receive no benefit. They have to live with whatever sentence they received.

I don't think this is fair. I believe anyone convicted under such a law should at least have his or her case reviewed. If the decision would have come out the same as in Vaillancourt, then the record should be cleared.

Moore will have to report to a parole officer for the rest of his life because he was convicted of a crime for which he wouldn't even be charged today.

That isn't right.

MOORE FACES another ongoing battle, one to this point he has been winning.

Tim Lanthier, the brother of Donald Lanthier, has been attempting to sway the parole board into preventing Moore from even visiting Sault Ste. Marie to see his mother.

Moore had provided me with typewritten letters he said had been copied from correspondence he had had with Lanthier in 1984. In one, Lanthier is purported to have said he forgave Moore, who replied that he couldn't accept his forgiveness as he had done nothing to be forgiven for.

Moore also said Lanthier visited him in prison and in one of the letters Lanthier is purported to have said he enjoyed the visit and would be coming back.

I phoned Lanthier to see why he had since changed his mind about Moore.

To my surprise, he denied ever writing to Moore or visiting him in prison.

"You didn't write him letters when he was in jail?" I asked again.

"No," he said. "The thing is, he was involved in murder of my brother. He denies he was involved. Has never taken ownership for the part he played, so as far as I am concerned he is guilty as sin.

"I don't want him anywhere near me. I am very active in my community and I don't want to be running into him.

"I don't want him in town and will do anything I can to keep him out of town."

To that end Lanthier earlier this year submitted a victim impact statement to the parole office in Sudbury, telling it about the effect his brother's slaying had had on the Lanthier family.

In a report in October 2009, the office said Moore " demonstrate overall positive community functioning with no critical identified needs or concerns."

It said Moore has no special conditions attached to his full-parole release as he has been in the (Sudbury) community for many years, maintaining pro-social community functioning.

It is this record that has enabled him to continue his visits to the Sault despite any intervention from an outside party.

But I do have some further checking to do in regard to Lanthier's claim that he never wrote or visited Moore.

We should stop punishing those who couldn't be convicted today

We should stop punishing those who couldn't be convicted today
by Doug Milroy, from The Sault Star, January 2011.

For those of you who believe anyone convicted of murder, no matter how tenuous the circumstances, should be punished for the rest of his or her life, you will like this one.

As I have detailed in this space many times, John Moore was convicted of second-degree murder in 1978 even though evidence showed he was not present when cab driver Donald Lanthier was slain by Gordon Stevens and Terry Hogan in a ravine off Third Line in 1978.

He was convicted on the basis of a law, declared ultra vires in 1987 and therefore no longer applicable in the Criminal Code of Canada, that "he knew, or ought to have known," that Stevens and Hogan were planning to commit an armed robbery as he had been in their company earlier in the day.

Moore, who served 10 years in prison, has always maintained his innocence and has been battling with the justice system for years to get his sentence overturned, but lately to at least get some relief from his life-time parole.

If you wonder why such relief is important to Moore, consider the "instruction" from the Correctional Service of Canada (Parole), the entity which effectively controls his life, in regard to his request that he be

allowed to travel to Sault Ste. Marie to visit his mother for Christmas.

In it, parole officer Peter Moore tells Moore the travel pass is good for Dec. 23 to Dec. 27 with the following restrictions:

* He is not to board any bus providing public transportation within the city of Sault Ste. Marie;

* He is not to enter any of the grocery stores conducting business under the name of No Frills;

* He is to avoid contact with the family of the victim of his offence.

The idea behind the instruction apparently is to prevent Moore from accidentally coming into contact with any member of Lanthier's family. As such, I am surprised, since the instruction is so wide-ranging anyway, that Martell didn't go so far as to ban Moore from visiting local malls.

But the requirements as they stand, which haven't been applied to Moore previously, are stringent enough to be ridiculous.

I especially take issue with the instruction banning him from using the local transit system to get around.

Travelling from his Sudbury home to the Sault by bus and living on welfare, this virtually condemns him to walking everywhere he goes because he certainly can't afford cab fare.

The Crown didn't have any evidence to charge Moore with conspiracy to commit a crime, so it went with the ought-to-have-known offence, a law that was almost impossible to defend against. This was recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada which, in 1987, overturned the conviction of Yvan Vaillancourt, even though he was present when his accomplice in a robbery of a convenience store shot and killed the clerk.

Moore has caused no trouble since his release from prison in 1987. In fact, he thwarted a robbery at a convenience store in Sudbury.

So I say again: I think it is time we as a society should be able to find a way out of continuing to hang a lifetime of punishment on someone from the past when no one could be convicted under similar circumstances today.

That isn't much to ask.

Letter from NDP Justice Critic to Minister of Justice

Honourable Rob Nicholson
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Room 105 East Block
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6

December 2, 2010

Dear Minister Nicholson,

I am writing concerning the case of John Moore an aboriginal Canadian convicted of a 2nd degree murder in 1978 under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code a section which as you are no doubt aware, s.21(2) was ruled unconstitutional in R. v. Vaillancourt.

At the time of Mr. Moore's conviction there existed a pattern of prosecution of First Nations as well as absence of representation on judicial panels which would now be ruled offensive to the Charter. Given the same set of circumstances today any objective observer would determine that he would not be charged, much less convicted of 2^nd degree murder.

Since his release from prison in 1989, Mr. Moore has continued to bear the burden and stigma of his conviction. He must still report to a parole officer, more than 30 years after his conviction and 20 years after his release from prison. The unique set of circumstances surrounding the case as well as the glaring injustice of his conviction cries out for clemency.

I would therefore ask you to investigate the matter and as is the Crown's prerogative under sections 748 and 749 of the Criminal Code, grant a full pardon to Mr. Moore.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Yours truly,


Joe Comartin, MP
Windsor-Tecumseh

JJC/grh
CEP 232

CBC Radio Sudbury Coverage of Petitions

See here for coverage of the presentation of John Moore's petition in Parliament by English CBC in Sudbury. It is a 5 minute interview with MP Glenn Thibeault, who presented the petition. The interview does not present as clearly as it could the patently unjust character of Moore's conviction -- it's not just that he wants to "move on with his life" now but rather that he should never have been convicted in the first place, given that the law under which he was convicted allowed people to be put away for a murder in which they had no involvement whatsoever, and given the systemic racism that shaped his experiences of the justice system. But it's exposure for the case, which is important, and Glenn and his staff should be commended for their work on John's behalf!

Wrongly convicted aboriginal man has been trying to clear name for 30 years

New Democrats demand justice for John Moore: Wrongly convicted aboriginal man has been trying to clear name for 30 years
from CanadaViews.CA, November 25, 2010.

OTTAWA – Today marks the culmination of over two decades of hard work and perseverance by John Moore, an aboriginal Canadian wrongly convicted of a crime he didn’t commit. Moore, an Ojibway man, was convicted of 2nd degree murder in 1978 under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada – a law that was later ruled unconstitutional in the late 1980s in R. v. Vaillancourt. Under similar circumstances today, no one in Moore’s position would be charged with a crime, let alone convicted.

Moore wants his name cleared so that he can begin to move on with his life following this 30 year ordeal. “It is my hope that with the attention my case has received today that my name is finally cleared,” said Moore. “I want to begin my life, and until this charge is lifted, I am still a prisoner.”

Since his release from prison in 1989, Moore has continued to bear the burden and stigma of his conviction. He must regularly report to a parole officer and must ask permission if he wishes to leave the city of Sudbury, impeding his freedom of movement and his capacity to find meaningful work while ultimately hindering his ability to fully reintegrate into society.

Moore has been actively involved in struggles for social justice in Sudbury, earning an overwhelmingly strong base of support within the community. “I know John personally; he has been an active and positive member of the Sudbury community for many years. The city has, and continues to, stand solemnly in support of John’s cause” said Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury).

In response to the suggestion that Mr. Moore’s trials were tainted with systemic racism, New Democrat Justice critic Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh) responded “This is just another example of the biased nature of Canada`s criminal justice system. We have seen cases like this over and over. It begs the question about whether Moore would have been treated as harshly by the criminal justice system if he were a white-collar Caucasian.”

Earlier this morning, over a thousand petitions were tabled in the House of Commons by various members of the New Democrat caucus calling on Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to take action to clear Moore’s name. Moore was accompanied by supporters from Justice and Freedom for John Moore, a committee composed of supporters from across Ontario.

MP Glenn Thibeault Introduces John Moore's Petition in Parliament

On November 25, 2010, John Moore's struggle reached the floor of Parliament. Here is MP Glenn Thibeault introducing a petition with more than 3000 signatures asking that the Minister of Justice order a review of Moore's conviction.


Powered By: VideoBuzz

Moore wants his conviction to be overturned

Unfortunately, The Sudbury Star doesn't let you embed their videos in other sites, so please follow this link to a short video report made on the occasion of a media conference at the office of MP Glenn Thibeault to send off a petition demanding a review of John's conviction with thousands of signatures to be presented in by Thibeault in the House of Commons. (The Star also does not tend to leave material up over long periods, so the link above may only work for a limited time.)

Local News Article: "'I wanted to die,' recalls former prisoner charged in Sault murder"

'I wanted to die,' recalls former prisoner charged in Sault murder
by Bob Vaillancourt, published on August 10, 2010 in The Sudbury Star and August 11, 2010, in The Sault Star.

The violence and disturbing atmosphere of a federal penitentiary caused John Moore to contemplate taking his own life, he told a group of people on the front lawn of the Sudbury District Jail on Monday.

The gathering, led by the John Howard Society of Sudbury, was marking Prisoner Justice Day, a day set aside to remember the men and women who have died while serving time in jails, reformatories and federal penitentiaries.

Moore, who was convicted in the June 30, 1978, death of taxi driver Donald Lanthier in Sault Ste. Marie, has been spending every waking moment since that conviction seeking exoneration, saying he had nothing to do with the death.

He has said he was simply a taxi driver who happened to pick up a fare that turned out to be Lanthier's killers. [Please note that this is not actually what John says -- he was never a taxi driver. However, his conviction is based purely on having spent time earlier that day with the men who actually did kill Lanthier.

Moore was placed on parole in 1988 after serving 10 years.

Most of that time, he said Monday, was spent at Millhaven "a super maximum" facility that no one escapes from, particularly in broad daylight.

But Moore was so demoralized by his situation, that's exactly what he tried to do, anticipating that he would be fatally shot in the process.

He decided to escape by scaling the two perimeter fences at the facility.

"I didn't want to be in that environment. I wanted to die," he said on Monday. "It didn't turn out that way.

"I got over both fences without getting shot because that's what they do, they shoot, then they ask questions and then they put their reports in. But that day God must have been looking over me because I never got shot.

"It was like a spiritual awakening because if I could do that in broad daylight without getting shot, then somebody was watching over me," said Moore.

After he scaled the second, 25-foot high fence, Moore said he twisted his ankle and was soon apprehended by a guard who caught up with him.

It's good that a day is set aside to draw attention to the violence that can exist inside a penal institution, said Moore.

No one wants that violence, but it is there, said John Rimore of the John Howard Society.

No matter where they come from, or what they have done, the men and women behind bars deserve our support, said Colette Bezeau, a volunteer with the Elizabeth Fry Society.

Prisoner Justice Day "is a day to acknowledge that all of them were and are a part of our society," she said.

Summaries of Moore's Trials

John is hard at work writing a book about his unjust conviction and his struggle for justice. In the course of doing that work, he has methodically gone through the thousands of pages of transcript from both of his trials and prepared summaries of them. He asked me to post the summaries here.

No evidence linking me to Mr. Lanthier's murder and robbery at First Trial 1979, second trial 1982.

The following pages is a summary of 3,000 pages of trial transcripts, into 19 pages of trial transcripts from two trials, 1979 winter trial, and the 1982 fall trial. The first trial in January 1979, there were 35 witnesses at the first trial and 33 of those witnesses and their evidence, absolutely and unequivocally don't link me to Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. At the second trial fall of 1982, there were ten less witnesses's. At the second trial there was 25 witnesses's, 23 of those witnesses's and their evidence absolutely and unequivocally don't link me to Mr. Lanthier's murder and robbery.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO

Regina vs. John Caleb Moore, Gordon Simon Stevens and Terrance Hogan.

Mr. N. Douglas: For The Crown Attorney
Mr. D. Gaetz: Lawyer for John Caleb Moore (Johnny) AN INNOCENT MAN.
Mr. K. Smyth: Lawyer for Gordon Simon Stevens (Gordy) GUILTY!
Miss L. Rudolph: Lawyer for Terrance Robert Hogan (Robert) GUILTY!

At the first trial on January 15-30, 1979, 27 Crown witnesses did not link me to Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. The other two witnesses, Gordon Stevens and John C. Moore didn't link me to Mr. Lanthier's murder and robbery either. All witnesses and a summary of their evidence are listed below:

1.Sergeant Shanahan, {91 pages of evidence, volume 1, pages104-135, 142-147, 188-243}Crown Police witness, no DNA, no physical and no finger print evidence. Sergeant Shanahan's 91 pages of evidence absolutely doesn't link, John C. Moore too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
2.Mrs. Joan Cole, {11 pages of evidence , volume 1, pages 147-158}Crown witness, her evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
3.Miss Shirley Lewis, {11 pages of evidence, volume 1, pages 158-169}Crown witness, her evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
4.Miss Marian Taylor-Bailey, {8 pages of evidence, volume 1, pages 169-177}Crown witness, her evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
5.Mr. Alan Gavin, {11 pages of evidence, volume 1, pages 177-188}Crown witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
6.Mr. Lloyd James Leach, {volume 1, page 144}Crown witness, No evidence presented by this witness.
7.Mr. Dale Lloyd, {volume 1, page 144}Crown witness, No evidence presented by this witness.
8.Mr. Norman Edward Erickson, {16 pages of evidence, volume 1, pages 245-261}Professional Crown witness, he is an Analysis for Forensic Sciences in Toronto, his evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
9.Constable Allan Rains, {8 pages of evidence, volume 1, pages 261-269}Crown Police witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
10.Detective Eric Overman, {14 pages of evidence, volume 1, pages 269-283}Crown Police witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
11.Miss Holly Overland, {15 pages of evidence, volume 2, pages 345-360}Crown Police witness, her evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
12.Mr. Scott Overland , {15 pages of evidence, volume 2, pages 360-375}Crown witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
13.Mr. Tim Lanthier , {2 pages of evidence, volume 2, pages 375-377}Crown witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
14.Ms. Joyce McLaughlin , {9 pages of evidence, volume 2, pages 377-386}Crown witness, her evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
15.Doctor Bendra Rasaiah Pathologist , {34 pages of evidence, volume 2&3. page 435 / vol 3 436-469}Professional Crown witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. No DNA and No Physical evidence.
16.Detective Hugh Morrow , {21 pages of evidence, volume 3, pages 470-491}Police Crown witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
17.Mrs. Sylvia Nichols , {13 pages of evidence, volume 3, pages 616-629}Crown witness, her evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
18.Mr. Ronald Bernie Bugie, {3 pages of evidence, volume 3, pages 631-634}Crown witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
19.Ms. Darlene Joy Marshall, {61 pages of evidence, volume 3&4, pages 635-650 / vol 4 651-697}Crown witness, her evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. There is clear evidence in Ms. Marshall's evidence, that suggest she knew of Robert Hogan's knife, that he used in the murder of Mr. Lanthier. This would make her an accessory after the fact to murder. Yet no charges where filed against her.
20.Mrs. Eleanor Boreham , {23 pages of evidence, volume 4, pages 698-721}Crown witness, her evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. Mrs. Boreham was an extremely nervous and confused witness, with times and days in her evidence.
21.Ms. Barbara Pasqua , {12 pages of evidence, volume 4, pages 722-734 / [page 726-628, suggest accessory after the fact to murder. No mention of asking Mr. Hogan to pull a job behind Royal Bank.]}Crown witness, her evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. There is clear evidence in Ms. Pasqua's evidence, that suggest she knew of Robert Hogan's knife, that he used in the murder of Mr. Lanthier. Ms. Pasqua and Lee Anne Ledyit, washed Mr. Hogans clothing with blood on it. Therefore, washing DNA evidence off Mr. Hogan's clothing. This would make her an accessory after the fact to murder. Yet no charges where filed against her.
22.Miss. Lee Anne Ledyit, {35 pages of evidence, volume 4, pages 735-770, [page 747-750 & 760 & 766 lines 25-32, suggest accessory after the fact to murder. At page 758 line 3, suggest mistrial.]}Crown witness, her evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. Lee Anne Ledyit, washed Mr. Hogans clothing with blood on them. Therefore, washing DNA evidence off Mr. Hogan's clothing. This would make her an accessory after the fact to murder. Yet no charges where filed against her. Miss Ledyit was asked this question by my lawyer, Mr. Gaetz, Question: I see who told you that? Answer: “I can't remember if it was the Crown Attorney or a Detective.” This suggest a miss trial that could have been called!
23.Mr. Michael Dorhety, {14 pages of evidence, volume 4, pages 771-785, page 777 makes it clear that there was no discussion about robbing a cab driver. The alleged discussion was about a confectionary store. On page 782 lines 14-23, Mr. Dorhety states that there was no discussion about a job.}Crown witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. Mr. Dorhety's, evidence, was allegedly of robbing a confectionery store. In Mr. Dorhety's, there is no evidence suggesting robbing a taxi-driver.
24.Mr. Ivan Walter McCrieght, {10 pages of evidence, Volume 4, pages 786-796, confused witness, at page 9 lines, 24-28, Mr. McCrieght states he didn't know anyone else at Darlene's place.} Crown witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. After, four cross-examinations by four different Lawyers, there is not a shred of evidence that suggest that Mr. McCrieght knew me, John C. Moore, personally. In his own words, “I don't know the other two guys, that where there.” (Q: Did you know them? A: “No, I just met them that night eh.”) [Volume 4, Page 794 at lines 24 to 28].
25.Mr. Chris McDonald, {2 pages of evidence, volume 4, pages 797-799}Crown witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
26.Mr. Leslie Lorne Williams, {2 pages of evidence, volume 4, pages 800-802}Crown witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
27.Mr. Donald Nevitt, {13 pages of evidence, volume 4, pages 803-816 [there is no acknowledgment that Mr. Nevitt even knew me, at page 807 lines 18-32 / 808 lines 4-10, Mr. Nevitt was asked this Q: “was Gordon Steven by himself?” A: “Yes, sir.”]}Crown witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. After, three cross-examinations by three different Lawyers, there is not a shred of evidence that suggest that Mr. Nevitt knew me, John C. Moore, personally.
28.Mr. Gordon Simon Stevens, {217 pages of evidence, volume 6&7, pages 1024-1180 / vol 7 pages 1181-1241} witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
29.Mr. John Caleb Moore's {164 pages of evidence, volume 5, pages 859-1022} suggest I had no idea that a cab driver was to be killed and robbed. Nor was I involved in any planning of the crime. Actually, I was found not guilty of a plan and deliberate murder! Officer Burn's evidence was of a conversation of utterances between Gordon and I, and under oath he stated, his notes where somewhat scratchy and some what distorted! At times Stevens and I where talking at the same time so he didn't write those parts down and he left information out of his scratchy notes. That information left out could have been the key evidence confirming my innocence! Adding to this, the fact that Constable Burns stating that his written notes were not clear raises doubt in what was alleged to have been said by Stevens and I in the holding cells on August 3, 1978.

I, John Caleb Moore, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly affirm that I absolutely and unequivocally did not kill Mr. Donald Lanthier.

I, John Caleb Moore, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly affirm that I absolutely and unequivocally did not know that Mr. Gordon Stevens or Mr. Robert Hogan had any weapons upon their person.

I, John Caleb Moore, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly affirm that I absolutely and unequivocally did not form an intention in common to rob the deceased with either Mr. Nichols or Mr. Stevens or Mr. Hogan.

There was speculation that there may have been a prier conversation, but speculation is not factual.

Actually, there were three of the Crown's witnesses's, Darlene Joy Marshall, Barbara Pasqua and Lee Anne Ledyit, whom admitted under oath that they knew about Mr. Hogan's weapon and knew of the blood on Mr. Hogan's clothing. Yet they washed Mr. Hogan's clothing that had blood or DNA evidence on them and gave Mr. Hogan's knife to Mr. Stevens for disposal. So these three Crown's witnesses could have been and should have been charged with accessories after the fact. All three witnesses, “should have or ought to have known”. The Crown chose not to charge these three woman. And why not?

I have this great sadness in my heart for my wrongful unconstitutional second degree murder conviction. I feel an overwhelming of sadness for the people who have unfairly judged me with no physical or DNA evidence. All they had was circumstantial evidence, hear-say evidence, lies, inconsistent statements, deep rooted racial beliefs among the Non-Aboriginal Sault Ste. Marie jurors, bias jury selection, inaccurate police notes and adverse and hostile Crown Witnesses constitutes doubt and therefore, I should have received the benefit of the doubt, which I am entitled to by law. Other witnesses were vague, sometimes inconsistent and sometimes contradictory.

My unconstitutional second degree murder conviction was based not upon any credible or factual evidence, but my unconstitutional second degree murder conviction was based on, simply upon an appeal to racism rather than reason and on the concealment of the truth. Racism played an extremely big part in my second degree murder conviction!

It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that I was not present when the crime was committed. I played no part whatsoever in planning or executing the June 30, 1978 murder and robbery of Mr. Donald Lanthier, the Sault Ste. Marie, taxi driver. It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that I was not present when the crime was committed. I played no part whatsoever in planning or executing the June 30, 1978 murder and robbery of Mr. Donald Lanthier, the Sault Ste. Marie, taxi driver.

My sole connection to the crime was that I spent time earlier that same day with Gordon Stevens and Robert Hogan, in Rick Nichol's car. Gordon Stevens and Robert Hogan, are the two men who did commit the June 30, 1978 murder of Mr. Lanthier. What ever Mr. Gordon Stevens and Mr. Robert Hogan did, they did of their own volition! I am not legally, liable for the irreversible actions of what Mr. Stevens and Mr. Hogan did to Mr. Donald Lanthier.

At the first trial on January 15-30, 1979, 27 Crown plus Gordon Stevens and John C. Moore witnesses don't link me to Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. So far we have 29 witnesses that absolutely don't link me to Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.

The seven remaining witnesses are listed below:

30. Detective Paul Doiren, {57 pages of evidence, volume 1&2, pages 283-300 / vol 301-345}Crown Police witness, his questionable evidence is from a Police Officer's point of view. There is evidence right across Canada, to suggest that police will lie to get a conviction. I made it very clear to Detective Doiron that I did not plan any type of crime and I did not kill Mr. Donald Lanthier. The fact that I was acquitted of a planned and deliberate act of murder, shows you that there was no plan. Actually, with this witness, there is absolutely no evidence that suggest that I was a part of murdering and robbing Mr. Donald Lanthier, The Sault Ste. Marie Taxi-driver.
31. Constable Gary Burn, admissible in law, {47 pages of evidence, volume 2, pages 387-434}Crown Police witness, his questionable evidence is from a Police Officer's point of view. There is evidence right across Canada, to suggest that police will lie to get a conviction. In the trial transcripts, volume 2, at page 422 and at lines 28 and 29, Constable states under oath that his notes were scratchy. He also states under oath that he left information out of his written notes, because Mr. Stevens and I were talking at the same time and too fast at times. There were many discrepancies in Constable Burn's scratchy and distorted notes of utterances, between the written and typed version! Those inaccurate, scratchy and distorted notes and that information, that was left out of Constable Burn's notes of the conversation of utterances could have been the key evidence confirming my innocence! With this in mind, by what Constable Burn's stated under oath about his inaccurate and distorted written notes of utterances, this would make it very clear and it also raises doubt in what was alleged to have been said, by Mr. Stevens and myself, in the holding cells on August 3, 1978, at 11:45 p.m.
32. Mr. Robert Terrance Hogan , Admissible in law, {133 pages of evidence, volume 7, pages 1242-1375} Crown witness, Mr. Hogan's August 3, 1978, statement is how I was implicated and dragged through this racist court system in the first place. At the first trial. Mr. Justice Stark warned the Non-Aboriginal jury that while Mr. Hogan's statement was admissible as evidence, “it is binding only against the man who made it and cannot be used against the others allegedly involved!” In one part of Mr. Hogan's statement, he claims that I threaten his life is he didn't kill the cab driver, which is false because, I absolutely and unequivocally did not threaten Mr. Hogan's life, in any way whatsoever. I believe he some how confused me with Mr. Stevens. Then Mr. Hogan alleges that I gave Mr. Stevens a bunch of phone numbers, for for a number of taxi-drivers. There is no evidence to show that this piece of paper with taxi numbers on it ever exchanged hands. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that I was not present when Mr. Stevens and Mr. Hogan, killed and robbed Mr. Donald Lanthier. I absolutely and unequivocally did not play and active role in planning or executing the June 30, 1978, murder and robbery of Mr. Donald Lanthier, the Sault Ste. Marie, Taxi-driver. My sole connection to the June 30, 1978 murder and robbery of Mr. Donald Lanthier, was spending time earlier that same day with Rick Nichols, Gordon Stevens and Robert Hogan. What ever Mr. Gordon Stevens and Mr. Robert Hogan did, they did of their own volition! I, John C. Moore, am not legally or liable for the irreversible actions of the principal offenders, Mr. Stevens and Mr. Hogan the principal offenders.
33. Mr. Richard Nichols, admissible in law, {123 pages of evidence, volume 3, pages 492-615} lying Crown witness, (he is white), his evidence consisted of five inconsistent statements, which where subject to a void dire! My sole connection to the crime was just being in Rick Nichol's car with Gordon Stevens and Robert Hogan earlier in the day and then again when Rick dropped Stevens and Hogan off that evening around 11:30 p.m. on June 29, 1978, around Goulais Ave and Douglas street. That is about the closest I came to the murder and robbery of Mr. Lanthier. Back then I never had my drivers licence. It was Rick Nichols who asked me if I would like to go for a ride that evening. In Rick's evidence there are numerous times he lied, by saying I made certain alleged comments about what Gordon and Terry had said while existing Ricks car that evening. Those alleged comments where never made by me or to me by Gordon Stevens or Robert Hogan. There were clear inconsistencies and contradiction in Rick Nichols evidence. Mr. Nichol's evidence absolutely don't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
34. Officer John Campbell, {7 pages of evidence, volume 4, pages 817-824, [At 819 lines 25-28, six words]}Crown Police witness, his evidence was of an alleged whispering comment that I allegedly made and directed at Mr. Robert Hogan. The words that were allegedly used by me and Officer John Campbell supposedly over heard were these words, “you fucken snitch, you fucken squealer.” Six words out of his eight pages of evidence. I know for a fact I didn't use such words, because those words where not part of my vocabulary. I never heard such words, “you fucken snitch, you fucken squealer”, until I was imprison, for a murder that I absolutely and unequivocally did not commit or had any part in. There is evidence right across Canada, to suggest that police will lie to get a conviction.
35. Officer George T. Burmasters, {8 pages of evidence, volume 4, pages 824-832, [At page 827 lines 20-22, one sentence.]}Crown Police witness, his evidence was of an alleged conversation he allegedly overheard through an inch or two inch crack in the door of court room C, Justice Boyd's Court room, between Mr. Stevens and myself. This alleged conversation was what Mr. Stevens, allegedly had said, “There are only four of us that know what happen that night. One is dead, you, me and Hogan.” Nine pages of evidence of an alleged conversation and those two sentences are the ones that stick out at the first trial. This alleged conversation absolutely and unequivocally did not transpire, between Mr. Stevens and myself. This alleged conversation could happen anywhere, between the court house and city jail. Yet Officer Burmasters, by chance overhears this alleged conversation through a crack in a court room door, which was about an inch or two. There is evidence right across Canada, to suggest that police will lie to get a conviction.
36. Detective Donald Sadowski, {23 pages of evidence, volume 4, pages 832-855}Crown Police witness, his evidence is all hear say evidence. There is evidence right across Canada, to suggest that police will lie to get a conviction. There is not physical or DNA evidence that links me too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. Mr. Hogan's statement is what implicated me in the murder of Mr. Donald Lanthier in the first place. But, it is clear in Mr. Hogan's statement, that Detective Sadowski's took, that Mr. Hogan said he planned it and he also stated that he stabbed the Taxi-driver Mr. Donald Lanthier many times.

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS:
After, Crown Attorney Norman Douglas, closed his case in 1979, In Regina vs. John C. Moore, there was absolutely no evidence to go to a Non-Aboriginal jury properly instructed that Mr. Moore planned a premeditated murder. Because, I absolutely and unequivocally did not kill Mr. Donald Lanthier the Sault Ste. Marie, Taxi-driver. Mr. Justice Stark stated this in court, “I don't see any great difficultly in protecting Mr. Gaetz's client John C. Moore, with respect to utterances made by others, which shouldn't be used as implication him.”

At the first trial there was roughly 1,795 pages of evidence that was presented, on January 15-30, 1979, including 56 exhibits. There was absolutely no factual evidence that was presented that linked me, John C. Moore to Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. There were 36 witnesses that presented their evidence in front of a Judge and Non-Aboriginal jurors, and 34 of those witnesses, their evidence absolutely don't link me to Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.

---

---

Note: No evidence linking me to Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery at second trial 1982 fall.

At the second trial in September 1982, there were 25 witnesses called, 10 less than the first trial and all 25 witnesses, had absolutely no factual evidence, that linked me too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. Actually, it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that I wasn't present when Mr. Lanthier was murder and robbed, by Mr. Gordon Stevens and Mr. Robert Hogan. To make it very clear, crystal clear, I am not legally responsible for the irreversible actions or Mr. Stevens or Mr. Hogan. What ever Mr. Stevens and Mr. Hogan did, they did of their own volition and that is a fact! I absolutely and unequivocally did not play an active role in planning or executing the June 30, 1978 murder and robbery of Mr. Donald Lanthier, the Sault Ste. Marie, Taxi-driver. Nor am I, legally responsible or liable for the death of Mr. Donald Lanthier. I am sincerely sorry, for Mr. Lanthier's death, but I absolutely and unequivocally did not play an active role in his death! My sole connection to the crime, was being in Rick Nichol's car earlier that day, with Mr. Stevens and Mr. Robert Hogan and again later on that evening, when Rick Nichols gave Gordon and Robert a ride to the West end of the city and dropped them off.

IN THE SURPREME COURT OF ONTARIO

BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Complainant

- and -

JOHN CALEB MOORE Accused

T R I A L P R O C E E D I N G S

Before THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE WALSH, and a Non-Aboriginal jury, at the sittings of the Assizes, in the Court House at Sault Ste. Marie, in the District of Algoma; commencing at 12 o'clock noon on Monday, the 20th of September 1982. September 20-30, 1982.

A P P E A R A N C E S:

NORMAN DOULAS Esq.: For The Crown Attorney
FRANK R. CAPUTO, Esq. Q.C.: Lawyer for John Caleb Moore AN INNOCENT MAN.
-and-
RODERICK W.A. SONLEY, Esq.

At the second trial on, September 20-30, 1982, 25 Crown witnesses did not link me to Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. All witnesses and a summary of their evidence are listed below:

WITNESSES AND THEIR EVIDENCE.

Monday -- September 20, 1982

1.Sergeant Shanahan, {55 pages of evidence was read in and 36 less pages than my first trial 1979, volume 1, pages 102-157}Crown Police witness, no DNA, no physical and no finger print evidence. Sergeant Shanahan is the Sault Ste. Identification Officer. Sergeant Shanahan's 55 pages of evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. Detective Ivan Shanahan, his evidence was read in. His evidence was in the capacity of the Police Identification Officer, photographer, and finger printing, his job is gather evidence and tag it and then present it. His evidence did not link me to the crime scene. There were no solid facts in his evidence that linked me to the murder of Mr. Lanthier.

Tuesday -- September 21, 1982

2.Miss Shirley Lewis, {10 pages of evidence was read in 1 less page than my first trial 1979, volume 1, pages 159-169}Crown witness, her evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. She was the Dispatcher with Steel City Cab.
3.Miss Marian Taylor-Bailey, {7 pages of evidence was read in 1 page less than my first trial 1979, volume 1, pages 170-177}Crown witness, her evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. She was the Dispatcher with Steel City Cab.
4.Mr. Alan Gavin, {10 pages of evidence was read in, 1 page less than my first trial 1979, volume 1, pages 177-188}Crown witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. Pete Gavin was a Steel City Cab driver.
5.Constable Allan Rains, {9 pages of evidence was read in three more than my first trial 1979, volume 1, pages 186-195}Crown Police witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
6.Mrs. Joan Cole, {10 pages of evidence was read in 1 less page than my first trial 1979, volume 1, pages 195-205}Crown witness, her evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
7.Miss Holly Overland, {11 pages of evidence was read in 3 less pages than my first trial 1979, volume 1, pages 206-217}Crown Police witness, her evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
8.Mr. Tim Lanthier , {2 pages of evidence was read in, volume 1, pages 216-217}Crown witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
9.Detective Hugh Morrow, {35 pages of evidence, volume 1, pages 218-253}Police Crown witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
10.Detective Donald Sadowski, {36 pages of evidence 13 more pages than my first trial 1979, volume 1&2, pages 253-285 / vol.2 pages 287-291}Crown Police witness, his evidence is all hear say evidence. There is evidence right across Canada, to suggest that police will lie to get a conviction. There is not physical or DNA evidence that links me too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. Mr. Hogan's statement is what implicated me in the murder of Mr. Donald Lanthier in the first place. But, it is clear in Mr. Hogan's statement, that Detective Sadowski's took, that Mr. Hogan said he planned it and he also stated that he stabbed the Taxi-driver Mr. Donald Lanthier many times.

Wednesday -- September 22, 1982

Detective Donald Sadowski, (resumes)[In-chf by Mr. Douglas (continued), Cr-ex by Mr. Caputo, Re-ex by Mr. Douglas]{36 pages of evidence 13 more pages than my first trial 1979, volume 1&2, pages 253-285 / vol.2 pages 287-291}Detective Donald Sadowski, {36 pages of evidence 13 more pages than my first trial 1979, volume 1&2, pages 253-285 / vol.2 pages 287-291}.
11.Constable Gary Burn, admissible in law, [Was subject to a void dire.], {46 pages of evidence, volume 2, pages 291-337, In-chf by Mr. Douglas 291, Cr-ex by Mr. Caputo 320, Re-ex by Mr. Douglas 334.} Crown Police witness, his questionable evidence is from a Police Officer's point of view. There is evidence right across Canada, to suggest that police will lie to get a conviction. In the first trial transcripts 1979, in volume 2, at page 422 and at lines 28 and 29, Constable states under oath that his notes were scratchy. He also states under oath that he left information out of his written notes, because Mr. Stevens and I were talking at the same time and too fast at times. There were many discrepancies in Constable Burn's scratchy and distorted notes of utterances, between the written and typed version! On page 308 at lines 28-30: A JURY MAN: My lord, we, the (Non-Aboriginal) jurors, were wondering if we could have the report given by the Constable here, that he gave this morning – have it re-read to us.? On page 309 at lines 3-4: It was confusing to us as to who was doing the speaking back and forth. Near the end of Officer Burn's evidence there was some confusion! Those inaccurate, scratchy and distorted notes and that information, that was left out of Constable Burn's notes of the conversation of utterances could have been the key evidence confirming my innocence! With this in mind, by what Constable Burn's stated under oath about his inaccurate and distorted written notes of utterances, this would make it very clear and it also raises doubt in what was alleged to have been said, by Mr. Stevens and myself, in the holding cells on August 3, 1978, at 11:45 p.m. In cross-examination, Officer Burns said he left parts of the conversation of utterances out of his notes. He also said his notes were scratchy. He also said he may have missed parts of the conversation of utterances. He even said his written version of the conversation of utterances were somewhat distorted. Mr. Burns said, and I quote: "They talked about many things, I did not write everything down in my notes." He also said, and I quote: "My notes look somewhat distorted." The type version of Officer Burn's inaccurate notes, where not the mirror image of his written version, but the opposite of them.
12.Mr. Richard Nichols, admissible in law, [Was subject to a void dire.] {120 pages of evidence, volume 2, pages 337-457} lying Crown witness, (he is white), his evidence consisted of five inconsistent statements, which where subject to a void dire! My sole connection to the crime was just being in Rick Nichol's car with Gordon Stevens and Robert Hogan earlier in the day and then again when Rick dropped Stevens and Hogan off that evening around 11:30 p.m. on June 29, 1978, around Goulais Ave and Douglas street. That is about the closest I came to the murder and robbery of Mr. Lanthier. Back then I never had my drivers licence. It was Rick Nichols who asked me if I would like to go for a ride that evening. In Rick's evidence there are numerous times he lied, by saying I made certain alleged comments about what Gordon and Terry had said while existing Ricks car that evening. Those alleged comments where never made by me or to me by Gordon Stevens or Robert Hogan. There were clear inconsistencies and contradiction in Rick Nichols evidence. Mr. Nichol's evidence absolutely don't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.

Thursday – September 23, 1982

Mr. Richard Nichols, admissible in law, (resumes) In-chf by Mr. Douglas (continued), Cr-ex by Mr. Caputo, Re-ex by Mr. Douglas. [Was subject to a void dire.] {120 pages of evidence, volume 2, pages 337-457} lying Crown witness, (he is white), his evidence consisted of five inconsistent statements, which where subject to a void dire!

13.Mr. Donald Nevitt, {10 pages of evidence, volume 2, pages 457-467, (In-chf by Mr. Douglas 457, Cr-ex by Mr. Caputo 467.) [at the first trial 1979, there was no acknowledgment that Mr. Nevitt ever knew me at the first trial, at page 807 lines 18-32 / 808 lines 4-10, Mr. Nevitt was asked this Q: “was Gordon Steven by himself?” A: “Yes, sir.”]}Crown witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. After, three cross-examinations by three different Lawyers, there is not a shred of evidence that suggest that Mr. Nevitt knew me, John C. Moore, personally. On page 459 at lines 10-20, it appears that Mr. Nevitt was either coached by the Crown or Police, because it appears that he knows me more personally at the second trial September 1982.
14.Ellie Stone (Mrs. Eleanor Boreham), {9 pages of evidence, volume 2, pages 467-475, ( In-chf by Mr. Douglas 467, Cr-ex by Mr. Caputo 474)} Crown witness, her evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. Ellie Stone (Mrs. Boreham) was an extremely nervous and confused witness, with times and days in her evidence at the first trial 1979. Miss Stone was extremely confused and nervous at the second trial as well. Miss Stone's evidence at the second trial was 14 pages less than my first trial. The Crown even suggested that Miss Stone was confused as well.
15.Ms. Darlene Joy Marshall, Hearsay evidence {27 pages of evidence, volume 2 pages 476-503, 34 pages more than my first trial 1979. (In-chf by Mr. Douglas 476, Cr-ex by Mr. Caputo 498.)}Crown witness, her evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. There is clear evidence in Ms. Marshall's evidence, that suggest she knew of Robert Hogan's knife, that he used in the murder of Mr. Lanthier. This would make her an accessory after the fact to murder. Yet no charges where filed against her.
16.Ms. Barbara Phillips, {23 pages of evidence, volume 2, pages 503-526, 11 more pages of evidence than my first trial.(In-chf by Mr. Douglas 503, Cr-ex by Mr. Caputo 512.) } [page 726-628, suggest accessory after the fact to murder at the first trial 1979. No mention in first trial 1979 trial transcript, that I was asking Mr. Hogan to pull a job behind Royal Bank.] But at the second trial 1982, there was a mention of me and Mr. Hogan allegedly speaking of pulling a job. There was no alleged conversation between Mr. Hogan, Mr. Steven or Myself, that Ms. Phillips (Ms. Pasqua) could have overheard. The only job I mention was a legitimate job in Elliot Lake at Denison Mines Ltd. Which could have been some confusion in her evidence at the second trial. Crown witness, Barbara Phillip's evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. There is clear evidence in Ms. Barbara Phillips, (Ms. Pasqua's) evidence, that suggest she knew of Robert Hogan's knife, that he used in the murder of Mr. Lanthier. Also, Ms. Pasqua and Lee Anne Ledyit, washed Mr. Hogans clothing with blood on it. Therefore, washing DNA evidence off Mr. Hogan's clothing. This would make her an accessory after the fact to murder. Yet no charges where filed against her.

Friday -- September 24, 1982

17.Mr. Robert Terrance Hogan , Admissible in law, In-chf by Mr. Douglas {55 pages of evidence, volume 3, pages 527-582, there are 78 pages less, than my first Trial 1979.} Crown witness, Mr. Hogan's August 3, 1978, statement is how I was implicated and dragged through this racist court system in the first place. At the first trial. Mr. Justice Stark warned the Non-Aboriginal jury that while Mr. Hogan's statement was admissible as evidence, “it is binding only against the man who made it and cannot be used against the others allegedly involved!” In one part of Mr. Hogan's statement, he claims that I threaten his life is he didn't kill the cab driver, which is false because, I absolutely and unequivocally did not threaten Mr. Hogan's life, in any way whatsoever. I believe he some how confused me with Mr. Stevens. Then Mr. Hogan alleges that I gave Mr. Stevens a bunch of phone numbers, for a number of taxi-drivers. There is no evidence to show that this piece of paper with taxi numbers on it ever exchanged hands. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that I was not present when Mr. Stevens and Mr. Hogan, killed and robbed Mr. Donald Lanthier. I absolutely and unequivocally did not play and active role in planning or executing the June 30, 1978, murder and robbery of Mr. Donald Lanthier, the Sault Ste. Marie, Taxi-driver. My sole connection to the June 30 , 1978 murder and robbery of Mr. Donald Lanthier, was spending time earlier that same day with Rick Nichols, Gordon Stevens and Robert Hogan. What ever Mr. Gordon Stevens and Mr. Robert Hogan did, they did of their own volition! I, John C. Moore, am not legally or liable for the irreversible actions of the principal offenders, Mr. Stevens and Mr. Hogan the principal offenders. Under oath at the second trial 1982, stated 222 times that he doesn't remembering making his inaccurate and lying statement. And I absolutely and unequivocally did not adopt Mr. Hogan's statement in anyway shape or form! I, John Caleb Moore, do solemnly and sincerely, and truly affirm that I absolutely and unequivocally did not kill Mr. Donald Lanthier. I, John Caleb Moore, do solemnly and sincerely, and truly affirm that I absolutely and unequivocally did not know that Mr. Gordon Stevens or Mr. Robert Hogan had any weapons upon their person. I, John Caleb Moore, do solemnly and sincerely, and truly affirm that I absolutely and unequivocally did not form an intention in common to rob the deceased Mr. Lanthier with either Mr. Nichols, Mr. Stevens or Mr. Hogan. THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE WALSH, ruled in a void dire, that Mr. Robert Hogan was adverse and hostile witness for the Crown. Which eliminates Mr. Robert Hogan as the Crown's number one key witness. That mean Mr. Hogan's August 3, 1978 statement is not evidence against me, it's only evidence against himself.

Monday -- September 27, 1982

Mr. Robert Terrance Hogan , Admissible in law, (resumes) Cr-ex by Mr. Caputo, Re-ex by Mr. Douglas {55 pages of evidence, volume 3, pages 527-582, there are 78 pages less, than my first Trial 1979.} Crown witness, Mr. Hogan's August 3, 1978, statement is how I was implicated and dragged through this racist court system in the first place. At the first trial. Mr. Justice Stark warned the Non-Aboriginal jury that while Mr. Hogan's statement was admissible as evidence, “it is binding only against the man who made it and cannot be used against the others allegedly involved!”

18.Mr. Michael Dorhety, {18 pages of evidence, volume 3, pages 582-600, there are 4 more pages than my first trial 1979. (In-chf by Mr. Douglas 582, Cr-ex by Mr. Caputo 593.)} [On page 777 vol 4, at the first trial, makes it clear that there was no discussion about robbing a cab driver. The alleged discussion was about a confectionary store. On page 782 lines 14-23, Mr. Dorhety states that there was no discussion about a job. There was never any alleged discussion on any criminal active. The only discussion was a job that was offered at Denison Mines Ltd.] Crown witness, Mr. Michael Dorhety's evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. Mr. Dorhety's, evidence, was allegedly of robbing a confectionery store. In Mr. Dorhety's, there is no evidence suggesting robbing a taxi-driver.
19.Miss. Lee Anne Ledyit, {19 pages of evidence, volume 3, pages 601-620, 16 pages less than my first trial 1979. (In-chf by Mr. Douglas 601, Cr-ex by Mr. Caputo 612, Re-ex by Mr. Douglas 620.) [At my first trial 1979, Vol 4 pages 747-750 & 760 & 766 lines 25-32, suggest accessory after the fact to murder. At page 758 line 3, suggest mistrial.]}Crown witness, her evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. Lee Anne Ledyit, washed Mr. Hogans clothing with blood on them. Therefore, washing DNA evidence off Mr. Hogan's clothing. This would make her an accessory after the fact to murder. Yet no charges where filed against her. [Miss Ledyit was asked this question by my lawyer, Mr. Gaetz, at the first trial, Question: I see who told you that? Answer: “I can't remember if it was the Crown Attorney or a Detective.” This suggest a miss trial that could have been called!] Also In chief, on page 606 lines 23-31, page 610 lines 16-27, page 611 lines 3-31, page 612 lines 3-14, [Cross examination], page 614 lines 12-31, page 615 lines 24-31 and page 617 lines 18-25, all these pages and lines are suggesting that Lee Ann Ledyit, Darlene Marshall and Barbara Pasqua, could have been charged with being accessories after the fact to murder. No charges were laid!
20.Ms. Joyce McLaughlin , {9 pages of evidence was read in at second trial 1982, volume 3, pages 621-630}Crown witness, her evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
21.Mr. Chris McDonald, {2 pages of evidence was read in at second trial, volume 3, pages 630-632}Crown witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
22.Mr. Ivan Walter McCrieght, {49 pages of evidence, Volume 3, pages 633-682, 39 pages more than my first trial 1979. (In-chf by Mr. Douglas 633, Cr-ex by Mr. Caputo 640, Re-ex by Mr. Douglas 679.){ At the first trial 1979, at pages 786-796, Mr. Was an extremely confused witness, at page 9 lines, 24-28, Mr. McCrieght states he didn't know anyone else at Darlene's place.} Crown witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. After, four cross-examinations by four different Lawyers, there is not a shred of evidence that suggest that Mr. McCrieght knew me, John C. Moore, personally. In his own words, “I don't know the other two guys, that where there.” (Q: Did you know them? A: “No, I just met them that night eh.”) [Volume 4, Page 794 at lines 24 to 28]. But at the second trial 1982, it appeared that Mr. McCreight was coached by either the Crown or Police. At pages 637&638 at the second trial, there is evidence that suggest that Mr. McCreight was coached and confused about this alleged conversation between four people in two rooms from the living room couch. At page vol 3, 646 and lines 20-25, Mr. McCreight was talking about the fight on Friday June 30, 1978 in the evening. On page vol 3, 647 at lines 24-27, Mr. McCreight stated he was confused about the date and times. And at page vol 3, 649 at lines 20-27, Mr. McCreight stated that the bed room door was closed. Even the judge notice that Mr. McCreight was some what confused, on page vol 3, 652 at lines 7-20. So at page 652 vol 3, at lines 15-31, Mr. Justice Walsh, starts his own cross examination of Mr. McCreight for the Crown. Mr. Justice Walsh cross examination of Mr. McCreight continued for about four or six pages off and on. What Justice Walsh did, was against rules of evidence, which suggest that a mistrial should have been called. On page 659 at lines24-25, Mr. McCreight said, “You've got me too confused. I can't remember what's going on.” On page 663 at lines 5-17, Mr. McCreight states that he has a learning disability, which affects his memory. At page 667 at lines 14-31, there evidence that suggest that a mistrial could have been called. On page 676 at lines 20-31, there is more evidence to suggest a mistrial and also evidence to suggest coaching of the witness Mr. McCreight by the Crown and the Police. On page 678 and 679, there is more evidence that suggest coaching of Mr. McCreight, before the 1982 trial. Then on page 680 at lines 2-10, Mr. McCreight states, “I'm not trying to make things up.”
23.Mr. Scott Overland , {A reference was made to Scott Overland one page of evidence, volume 3, page 683} Crown witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
24.Doctor Bendra Rasaiah Pathologist , {20 pages of evidence was read in, 14 pages less than my first trial 1979, volume 3. page 684-704}Professional Crown witness, his evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. No DNA and No Physical evidence.
25.Mr. Norman Edward Erickson, {11 pages of evidence was read in, 5 less pages than my first trial 1979, volume 3, pages 705-716}Professional Crown witness, he is an Analysis for Forensic Sciences in Toronto, his evidence absolutely doesn't link me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.
26.Officer John Campbell, {4 pages of evidence 3 pages less than my first trial 1979, volume 3, pages 716-720, [At the first trial 1979 at page, 819 lines 25-28, six words]}Crown Police witness, his evidence was of an alleged whispering comment that I allegedly made and directed at Mr. Robert Hogan. The words that were allegedly used by me and Officer John Campbell supposedly over heard were these words, “you fucken snitch, you fucken squealer.” Six words out of his eight pages of evidence. I know for a fact I didn't use such words, because those words where not part of my vocabulary. I never heard such words, “you fucken snitch, you fucken squealer”, until I was imprison, for a murder that I absolutely and unequivocally did not commit or had any part in. There is evidence right across Canada, to suggest that police will lie to get a conviction. This Crown police witnesses's evidence doesn't link me, John C. Moore too, Mr. Lanthier's murder and robbery.
27.Officer George T. Burmasters, {12 pages of evidence 4 more pages than my first trial 1979, volume 3, pages 721-733, [At My first trial at page 827 lines 20-22, one sentence.]}Crown Police witness, his evidence was of an alleged conversation he allegedly overheard through an inch or two inch crack in the door too court room C, Justice Boyd's Court room, between Mr. Stevens and myself. This alleged conversation was what Mr. Stevens, allegedly had said, “There are only four of us that know what happen that night. One is dead, you, me and Hogan.” Nine pages of evidence of an alleged conversation and those two sentences are the ones that stick out at the first trial. This alleged conversation absolutely and unequivocally did not transpire, between Mr. Stevens and myself. This alleged conversation could have happen anywhere, between the court house and city jail. Yet Officer Burmasters, by chance overhears this alleged conversation through a crack in a court room door, which was about an inch or two. There is evidence right across Canada, to suggest that police will lie to get a conviction. This Crown police witnesses's evidence doesn't link me, John C. Moore too, Mr. Lanthier's murder and robbery.

I N S U M M A R Y :
At the second trial there was roughly 1,660 pages of evidence that was presented, on September 20-30, 1982, including 56 exhibits. Even at the second trial there was absolutely no factual evidence that was presented, that linked me, John C. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. There were 26 witnesses called to present their evidence in front of a Judge and Non-Aboriginal jurors and all those witnesses absolutely and unequivocally don't link me, John C. Moore too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery.

So after two trials in front of two Non-Aboriginal Jurors in a Sault Ste. Marie Court house. Three appeals to the Appeal Courts of Ontario and one appeal to The Supreme Court of Canada and 3,455 pages of trial transcripts and 56 exhibits, there still is absolutely and unequivocally no factual evidence that links me, John Caleb. Moore, too Mr. Donald Lanthier's murder and robbery. This still leaves me waiting for justice in Canada.

INACCURATE NOTES:
Officer Gary Burn's inaccurate notes
On page 321 at lines 17-19:
Q: Now, the question says five cells. Did you not notice that when the question was asked?
A: I don't know. I may have made a mistake.

On page 328 at lines 14-21:
Q: And while you're writing it out, you have to concentrate on both what you're writing and what you're listening to?
A: Absolutely.
Q: Did you find that difficult?
A: At some point I did.
Q: Were there points when both me were speaking at the same time?
A: There may have been.

On page 332 at lines 16-27:
Q: In you mind was there ever at a previous stage of confusion as to whether that was Rick or Rod.
A: Yes, there was.
Q: And at that point in time you didn't know whether somebody had said Rick or somebody had said Rod, is that fair?
A: Not that I didn't know who said it, it wasn't quite clear if I had Rick or Rod in my writing.
Q: Well, what do you say now?
A: I'm still not sure.
Q: You're still not sure?
A: If it was Rod or Rick. I believe it was Rod, but it could have been Rick, I'm not sure.

IN SUMMARY
There was speculation that there may have been a prier conversation, but speculation is not factual.

Constable Gary Burns, His evidence became essential and crucial to the Crowns case, after Mr. Robert Hogan was declared HOSTILE OR ADVERSE witness. And after Mr. Rick Nichols openly admitted under oath that he lied and made things up on the witness stand, Officer Burn's evidence became even more essential and crucial to Mr. Norman Douglas, The Crown Attorney.

All other witnesses and their evidence, absolutely did not solidly link me to Mr. Lanthier's murder, that is fact. There was a lengthy debate over the typed version of Officer Burn's notes. His notes were inaccurate and one sided. The typed version of Officer Burns' notes, were prejudicial and one sided and Mr. Justice Walsh, ordered the typed version of his notes not to go into the jury room as an exhibit or aid for the jury. Those inaccuracies were numerous. Officer Burns' notes of the conversation of utterances, that were taken down in the City Police Station, in the holding cells on August 3, 1978. The time was supposedly from 11:45 p.m. to 2:30 a.m., between Mr. Stevens and myself. Officer Burns claimed that the conversation of utterances was two hours and 45 minutes long. The conversation of utterances did not last more than 45 minutes at tops. I fell asleep within 45 minutes of being placed in those holding cells.

Mr. Douglas, the Crown and Officer Burns, claimed that the conversation of utterances were two hours and 45 minutes long. It was impossible because within 45 minutes of being placed in the Police holding cells, I fell asleep. I was very tired, mentally exhausted and extremely stressed out, my brain started to shut down, from being charged with first degree murder and a number of conspiracy charges. Also I was charged with some unrelated charges at the same time. These were the stressors that made me very tired. I did pass out from being overly mentally and emotionally exhausted.

Also within those 45 minutes, I did mention numerous times to Mr. Stevens about my innocence. I also told him, that he knew I was innocent, so do something about it.

There was an echoing reflection coming off the walls in those holding cells at the Police station, when Mr. Stevens and I were talking. There were times when Mr. Stevens and myself spoke at the same time. It would have been impossible for anyone to determine who said what at those times.

On Wednesday, September 22, 1982, with crystal clarity, I recall seeing the Crown Attorney, Mr. Norman Douglas fold up officer Burn's notes and pass them to the clerk. After the Honourable Mr. Justice Walsh told Mr. Douglas that Officer Burn's typed version of his notes were not to go into the jury room as an exhibit. But as soon as the Honourable Justice Walsh bent his head forward to write in his notes. Mr. Norman Douglas the Crown, folded the typed version of Officer Burn's notes and with the written notes handed them to the clerk. The clerk took them and he place them on the exhibit pile.

His evidence was from a Police Officer's point of view. But his evidence did not solidly link me to the murder of Mr. Lanthier. (page: 291-334, vol.II)

Summarizing all the evidence and witnesses, it's very clear to me that there is absolutely no solid factual evidence to back the Crown's theory in R. v. Moore. There was a reasonable doubt. There was lots of speculation on the Crown Attorney's part. There was no aboriginal jury members on the jury panel. The facts are clear, I was not judge by my peers. Evidence present at both trials, in 1979 and 1982, were merely: Speculative, Hear-say, Circumstantial, three Inconsistent statements, by Rick Nichols, Robert Hogan, and Officer Gary Burn's, the key Crown witnesses Mr. Nichol’s inconsistent testimony where he openly admitted that he lied under oath, as he was up on the witness stand. Mr. Hogan who was adverse or hostile witness, who did not acknowledge his prior inconsistent statement. Robert Hogan's unsworn statement, was inaccurate. Honourable Justice Walsh, ruled that Mr. Hogan was adverse or hostile witness. His inaccurate statement was fabricated and only evidence against himself. Mr. Rick Nichol's statement, was inaccurate. He lied numerous times on the witness stand under oath and he openly admitted this. He also open admitted under oath that he was make things up he was going along. Officer Gary Burn’s inaccurate notes both hand written and the typed version of those inaccurate notes.

Officers Campbell and Burmaster's evidence was from a Police Officer's point of view. None of their evidence, solidly linked me to Mr. Lanthier's murder. They were trying to make me look bad in front of the jury, because the Crown’s case fell apart after the ruling on his key and crucial witnesses. Officer's Campbell and Burmasters evidence was exaggerated and it was from a Police Officer's point of view. It was more racism than anything else.

Officer Gary Burn's notes were inaccurate and one sided, and from a Police Officer's point of view. His notes were not permitted into the jury room with other exhibits even as an aid to the jury, but I do recall with crystal clarity seeing Mr. Norman Douglas the Crown Attorney, hand those notes, the written and typed version to the clerk. This is when his Honourable Justice Walsh's head was bent forward writing in his notes. Officer Burn's, notes were very prejudicial, one sided, and distorted, especially the typed version. Officer Burn's distorted notes were crucial, and essential to the Crown's case.

All other Police officers who gave evidence, were from a Police Officer's point of view, and their evidence did not solidly link me to Mr. Lanthier's death. They were trying to make me out to be a Mafioso type person. I am not that type of person. It was more racism than anything.

All other witnesses, and their evidence, did not solidly link me to Mr. Lanthier's death.

On a number of occasions throughout the trial, Mr. Frank Caputo, my lawyer told me, that he could have called a mistrial numerous times. The reason he did not call a mistrial was; because, he was overly confident, that he was going to win my case.

The bottom line is very clear, I absolutely did not kill Mr. Donald Lanthier. There was absolutely no plan to rob or kill Mr. Lanthier that I knew of. I am not responsible for his death. Nor am I responsible for the principal offenders, Mr. Gordon Steven's or Mr. Robert Hogan's irreversible actions. There was absolutely no agreement of any type, speculative or otherwise between, the principal offenders, Mr. Steven, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Nichol or myself. I absolutely did not have any foresight knowledge of events prior to Mr. Lanthier's death. I am very sorry that this man was killed. But I am not responsible for his death, and I can not be held accountable for the principal offenders Mr. Stevens or Mr. Hogan's irreversible actions. No one has the power to read other peoples thoughts.

It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that I was not present during the murder of Mr. Lanthier. The appeal courts judges, the crown, and the judges from both trials all acknowledge this one clear fact, that I was not at the scene of Mr. Lanthier's murder. How can I be guilty of Mr. Lanthier's murder than, when I was not even present at the scene of his murder?

Mr. Norman Douglas, The Crown Attorney, has failed to prove his case against me, beyond a reasonable doubt. He also failed to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, the essential elements which is required in R. v. Moore, MENS REA (“A GUILTY MINE”) AND ACTUS REUS (“A WRONGFUL ACTION”).

Its crystal clear to me, that I did not kill Mr. Lanthier. Especially when I was not even at or even near the scene of the crime. Therefore, I did not kill Mr. Lanthier.

It is also very clear to me that I never received a fair trial. There are some very clear reasons why I didn’t get a fair trial and these reasons are: [1] There was not one aboriginal persons in the jury panel that was selected in R. v. Moore. [2] There was reasonable apprehension that the jury was racially prejudice, because of their Christian beliefs. [3] There was reasonable apprehension that the Crown Attorney was racially prejudice also, because of his Christian beliefs. Note: Christian people viewed all Aboriginal peoples as: SPAWNS OF THE DEVIL, WILD BEAST, WILD ANIMALS, BARBARIC, UNCIVILIZED, SAVAGES, PAGANS, HEATHENS, SINFUL, DECEITFUL, WORTHLESS BUMS, DRUNKARDS, WICKED, RENEGADES, NON BELIEVERS, WITCHES AND DEVIL WORSHIPPERS. The negative spiritual list goes on. There was no solid factual evidence to convict me on anything. All evidence was speculation and conjecture. Yet I am labelled a murderer, and I never killed anyone.

As the “British North American Act,” the "Canadian Bill of Rights", the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" and the “United Nation’s Annexe of Civil and Political Rights,” guarantees.

THE ELEMENTS OF A CRIME.

The key essential elements to convict any Canadian citizen are:

Mens Rea: “A Guilty Mind.”

An intention in common!
An agreement!
Foresight knowledge of weapons!

Actus Reus: “A Wrongful Action.”

I was not at the scene of the murder!
I never actively participated in the crime!
I never had any weapons on my person!

These elements must exist at the same time and at the same time as the offence.

For all true criminal offences, it is necessary to prove two elements existed at the time of the offence: Actus reus, is Latin for “guilty act or deed.” It involves the physical conduct of the accused. For actus reus to exist, an individual must commit a prohibited action. Mens rea, is Latin for “guilty mind.” It focuses on the mental state of the accused and requires proof that the accused intended to commit a criminal wrong. There was absolutely no solid factual evidence to prove that I intended to commit a criminal wrong! None! ABSOLUTELY NONE! These elements must exist at the same time and at the same time as the offence.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifies in section 11(d) that a person is , “to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (not guilty before proven innocent) according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.” The onus, or responsibility for proof of actus reus and mens rea, is therefore on the Crown. The Crown must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is where Mr. Norman Douglas the Crown Attorney failed! He had no case against me! His evidence was skeletal! IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT IN THE MIND OF THE JUDGE OR JURY THAT THE ACCUSED COMMITTED THE CRIME. THE ACCUSED WILL GET THE BENEFIT OF THAT DOUBT AND BE ACQUITTED.


At the second trial in September 1982, there were 25 witnesses, 10 less than the first trial.
11 of those witnesses there evidence wasn't important enough to be called to the witness stand, so the Crown read in their least important evidence. Those witnesses absolutely don't link me to Mr. Lanthier's murder and robbery.

So this leaves 14 witnesses. Four of those Crown witnesses could have been charged and convicted of being accessories after the fact to murder.
That leaves 10 witnesses. Two of those witnesses admitted under oath, that they were coached by either the Crown or the Police. This suggest a mistrial could have been called.
So this leaves 8 other Crown witnesses. So you take the 6 of those Crown witnesses, who are police and professional witnesses; Detective Sergeant Shanahan, Norman Erickson, the Forensic Analysis, Officer Allan Rains, Detective Eric Overman, Detective Hugh Morrow and Doctor Bendra Rasaiah, the Pathologist. All these six professional witnesses don't link to Mr. Lanthier's murder and robbery. There is no DNA evidence and no physical evidences linking me to Mr.
Lanthier's murder and robbery.
Constable Gary Burns, inaccurate and scratchy notes where subject to a void dire.
The final witness Detective Donald Sadowski.

Man trying to clear name forced to give DNA sample

This is another of the older articles about John and his case that John has asked me to post. It is a 2006 article from a Sudbury paper about one of the many indignities he still must face as a result of his unjust 1978 conviction.

Man trying to clear name forced to give DNA sample
by Tracey Duguay, from Northern Life, December 22, 2006.

After being convicted of second-degree murder in 1978, John Moore spent 10 years in a peniteniary. He was released on bail in 1989, two years after the law used to convict him was repealed and ruled unconstitutional.

Moore was forced to report to the Ontario Provincial Police detachment in Sudbury this week to provide a DNA sample for a national database. The DNA Identification Act of 1998 allows law enforcement officers to collect samples from those convicted of serious offences.

"It's 28 years later and the OPP want a DNA sample," Moore says, shaking his head. "I've been out of jail for 18 years, contributing to this so-called 'just society.'"

His frustration is understandable given Moore has maintained his innocence in the murder conviction and has being try to clear his name for more than two decades.

He knew two men who were convicted of robbing and killing a taxi driver more than 25 years ago. Moore had spent time with them earlier in the day and was a passenger in the car that dropped the men off at a bar before the murder took place.

It was accepted as fact at his trial that Moore wasn't present during the murder. He was miles away fishing with a friend at the time. However, Moore was convicted on the grounds he should have known the murder was going to happen. This legal theory was known as culpable homicide, and the Supreme Court of Canada struck it down in 1989 because it was based on the presumption of guilt rather than innocence.

Moore was to live with the murder conviction on his record, even though he wouldn't be convicted on the same grounds today.

Moore has to provide a DNA sample because the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the legality of the DNA Identification Act being applied retroactively in 2006. This means even though the law didn't go into effect until 1998, it can be used against people convicted of a serious crime prior to this date.

Yet, even though the law used to convict Moore in 1978 was later repealed as unconstitutional, the same concept of retroactively isn't applicable.

Moore didn't want to cooperate with the summons but was advised by his lawyer to do so. If he didn't comply, a warrant for his arrest would be issued, which would be a violation of his parole and hecould be sent back to jail.

"I'm doing this in protest because it's against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," Moore says. He plans to file an appeal and is prepared to take it to the Supreme Court of Canada.

It wouldn't be the first time Canada's highest court has heard a similar argument. In the case R v. Rodgers, where the Supreme Court of Canada ruled about the legality of DNA law being applied retroactively, concerns about a violation to the charter were raised.

In particular, Section 8 of the charter states "everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure." While the court acknowledged that collecting DNA samples without consent did constitute a seizure outlined in the charter, in the written decision of the court, it stated "the collection of DNA samples for data bank purposes from designated classes of convicted offenders is reasonable."

The argument is based on the fact that collecting DNA is comparable to taking fingerprints.

Denying justice is surely a crime in itself

This is another of the older articles about John and his case that John has asked me to post. It is a 2008 column from a former editor of The Sault Star.

Denying justice is surely a crime in itself
by Dough Milroy, from The Sault Star, March 15, 2008.

I live in the hope that I will never have to write another line about John Moore, the man convicted of second-degree murder by two Sault judges because the prosecution managed to convince them that he "ought to have known" a murder was going to be committed.

But I won't hold my breath.

Because it has become painfully obvious over the years that most of the politicians and bureaucrats that infest Ottawa don't have the time, the will or the sense of fairness required to deal with one man and a charge the courts today wouldn't even hear.

Moore, as regular readers of this newspaper will undoubtedly recall, was convicted of second-degree murder in a Sault Ste. Marie court in 1978, even though evidence showed he was not present when Gordon Stevens and Terry Hogan killed 18-year-old cab driver Donald Lanthier in a robbery that netted them $15.

Moore was not convicted of conspiracy, just that he knew or "ought to have known" a robbery was going to take place as he had associated with the two killers earlier in the day.

Moore won a retrial but was convicted again in 1982.

He could not be convicted if tried now as the law under which he was convicted no longer exists.

In 1987 the Supreme Court of Canada overturned a murder conviction against Yvan Vaillancourt, a New Brunswicker who had participated in a robbery of a pool hall, in which his accomplice shot and killed a man, on the basis that he was not responsible or liable for the death since he could not have "objectively forseen it," effectively striking down the section of the Criminal Code that said any part to one crime in which another committed "ought to have known" the probably consequences.

It was a ruling that Moore thought might help him clear his name. It never did.

He has devoted his life to this cause since his release from prison in 1987, but despite submitting mountains of correspondence and pulling in lots of support from both within and without the political spheres, he has not made any headway with those at the upper end of the justice system. They have simply stood by the original decisions of the juries on a charge that has been declared unconstitutional by the highest court in the land.

So although Moore is continuing his fight, he is now focusing on another avenue. He is again seeking a free pardon under the provision of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy.

This route had been suggested to Moore in 1991 by Howard Hampton, then attorney general in Ontario's NDP government.

Moore took Hampton's advice but his application was rebuffed.

Doug Lewis, solicitor general in the then Progressive Conservative government, wrote him in 1993 that Sec. 690 of the Criminal Code (repealed in 2002) allows the minister of justice, on application for mercy from a convicted person, to order a new trial or refer the matter to a court of appeal for determination. He said the possibilities for remedial action under that section had to be exhausted before the matter could be referred to his ministry for consideration.

Moore continued his quest but with the same disappointing results. Although he had the support of many in and around Sudbury, where he has resided since his release from prison in 1987, including Liberal MP Diane Marleau, the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, he got nowhere.

J. Herve Sauve Q.C., wrote in his support in 2007. "I was Crown attorney for Sudbury and Manitoulin for 23 years. I feel I would not have prosecuted Mr. Moore for murder with those facts. It would have been unjust. Crown attorneys represent justice and the public. I feel in this case the prosecution went overboard for a conviction."

In October of 2007 Moore applied again for a free pardon but was certainly not cheered by the initial response from the solicitor general's ministry.

"In order to qualify for a pardon you must have a full five years after the warrant expiry date, that is five years after the sentence of the court has been satisfied," J. Wilson wrote. "This means that a lifer will never qualify for a pardon as they will be responsible to the criminal justice system one way or the other for life. They can use the route of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy -- a route involving the government of the day to basically negate the life sentence, a route that will only be given consideration if there are major extenuating circumstances -- and I know of only two in my 25-year career."

Sec. 748 of the Criminal Code says the Governor in Council may grant a free or conditional pardon to any person who has been convicted of an offence, the person thereafter deemed never to have committed the offence.

I see no reason why this should not be applicable to Moore.

Think about it. He was not at the scene where a murder was committed. He could not be convicted now because the law under which he was convicted no longer exists. He is not a danger to society, having become a responsible member of it, amply evidenced by the wealth of letters of support he has now and has had over the years and the fact he helped foil a robbery he happened upon at a convenience store in 2003.

Moore will have to report to a parole officer every three months for the rest of his life. He must get permission to travel. Any breach of parole could see him returned to prison.

Why not let him lead a normal life? Even if he had a debt to repay to society, surely it is repaid.

Keeping him in chains for something that is no longer a crime is surely a crime in itself.