Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Fri May 29, 2015 8:37 am

pmop57 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
pmop57 wrote:The more I read about this case but also about the surrounding politics and the Canadian politics in general I more and more come turn the conclusion that over years and for to long a time Canada was successfully hiding the own political issues, failures and negative developments behind it's big neighbour. In Europe Canada still is and was always considered the "better" part of the American continent, more rights, more freedom, better environmental politics, no internal problem, functioning institutions ... . Canada successfully kept itself outside the big news. In the last years only the enormous destruction of wide until than untouched parts of nature became more and more an issue of public discussion.


One of the big items that got me is that you do not have a right to have a lawyer during a police interrogation.
In addition, you cannot end an interrogation. You don't have to say anything but they can still continually keep badgering.
I would rather be in a liberal US state without the death penalty than in Canada.


Honestly, concerning the judiciary, since I am following injustice cases, I have learned to largely appreciate and prefer my home country's judiciary (even if also here a lot of things need to be ameliorated).


I am pretty sure that Nyki would not be charged even in New York. . . . .Not even sure she would be charged in Virginia or Texas.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Fri May 29, 2015 1:29 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
pmop57 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
pmop57 wrote:The more I read about this case but also about the surrounding politics and the Canadian politics in general I more and more come turn the conclusion that over years and for to long a time Canada was successfully hiding the own political issues, failures and negative developments behind it's big neighbour. In Europe Canada still is and was always considered the "better" part of the American continent, more rights, more freedom, better environmental politics, no internal problem, functioning institutions ... . Canada successfully kept itself outside the big news. In the last years only the enormous destruction of wide until than untouched parts of nature became more and more an issue of public discussion.


One of the big items that got me is that you do not have a right to have a lawyer during a police interrogation.
In addition, you cannot end an interrogation. You don't have to say anything but they can still continually keep badgering.
I would rather be in a liberal US state without the death penalty than in Canada.


Honestly, concerning the judiciary, since I am following injustice cases, I have learned to largely appreciate and prefer my home country's judiciary (even if also here a lot of things need to be ameliorated).


I am pretty sure that Nyki would not be charged even in New York. . . . .Not even sure she would be charged in Virginia or Texas.

The most stabilizing of Canadian institutions are the banks. The "Big Five" are not just Canadian institutions, but international conglomerates. As long as politics within Canada does not undermine this enviable banking stability, then Canada WILL escape international scrutiny.

Everything else in Canada, from land claims with aboriginals to the criminal justice system is commentary.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_Canada#Canadian_banks
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Jun 05, 2015 1:49 am

Desert Fox wrote:
pmop57 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
pmop57 wrote:The more I read about this case but also about the surrounding politics and the Canadian politics in general I more and more come turn the conclusion that over years and for to long a time Canada was successfully hiding the own political issues, failures and negative developments behind it's big neighbour. In Europe Canada still is and was always considered the "better" part of the American continent, more rights, more freedom, better environmental politics, no internal problem, functioning institutions ... . Canada successfully kept itself outside the big news. In the last years only the enormous destruction of wide until than untouched parts of nature became more and more an issue of public discussion.


One of the big items that got me is that you do not have a right to have a lawyer during a police interrogation.
In addition, you cannot end an interrogation. You don't have to say anything but they can still continually keep badgering.
I would rather be in a liberal US state without the death penalty than in Canada.


Honestly, concerning the judiciary, since I am following injustice cases, I have learned to largely appreciate and prefer my home country's judiciary (even if also here a lot of things need to be ameliorated).


I am pretty sure that Nyki would not be charged even in New York. . . . .Not even sure she would be charged in Virginia or Texas.

I wouldn't be too sure, DF. These cases are common due, I believe, to the universal need to impose order on chaos. The cops, confronted by a lot of shrieking and blood, latch onto the best-looking theory and then, due to another cognitive weakness (reluctance to change one's mind) stick to it like glue. If they have discovered a way in ?New York not to fall for that they should bottle it. I wonder what would have happened had Hammond survived. In that case, the impetus of the investigation might have been completely different. He might have been charged with stabbing Nyki and Woolley for instance.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13824
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Fri Jun 05, 2015 5:22 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:I wouldn't be too sure, DF. These cases are common due, I believe, to the universal need to impose order on chaos. The cops, confronted by a lot of shrieking and blood, latch onto the best-looking theory and then, due to another cognitive weakness (reluctance to change one's mind) stick to it like glue. If they have discovered a way in ?New York not to fall for that they should bottle it. I wonder what would have happened had Hammond survived. In that case, the impetus of the investigation might have been completely different. He might have been charged with stabbing Nyki and Woolley for instance.


I think most detectives would just consider the whole thing too much of a mess to try to prosecute anybody. Of course you could be right.
One item is in the US, she would have a lot more levels which she could appeal if she was convicted.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Jun 05, 2015 11:07 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:I wouldn't be too sure, DF. These cases are common due, I believe, to the universal need to impose order on chaos. The cops, confronted by a lot of shrieking and blood, latch onto the best-looking theory and then, due to another cognitive weakness (reluctance to change one's mind) stick to it like glue. If they have discovered a way in ?New York not to fall for that they should bottle it. I wonder what would have happened had Hammond survived. In that case, the impetus of the investigation might have been completely different. He might have been charged with stabbing Nyki and Woolley for instance.


I think most detectives would just consider the whole thing too much of a mess to try to prosecute anybody. Of course you could be right.
One item is in the US, she would have a lot more levels which she could appeal if she was convicted.

Yeah, Canada is more like the UK.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13824
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby leonmyerson » Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:54 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:I used to think that there was something distinctly American about framing "street people" for crimes, disregarding their rights, and finding one of them "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" as a kind of reprisal - even though the evidence would not support even a finding of guilt by a preponderance of the evidence. This case reassures me that we are not alone.

The time-period in question, was a civil-issue fairly unique to Toronto at that time; and not a general one across Canada. I am not 100% sure that the civic-political reality of Toronto played a decisive role in Nyki's wrongful conviction, but no one can deny that there's plenty of smoke in that regard.

The nuance to this case was why it was that of the four originally arrested, the three Americans were let go - they were basically unconvictable on the set of facts which emerged. The real question is: why was Nyki not also released at that point? It is my opinion that Nyki was just as unconvictable.

It's more than if the prosecution at her trial made a case beyond a reasonable doubt. It's also an issue in these sorts of confused melees that there may be also other scenarios, which could also be proven BARD on the same set of facts. The Ontario Court of Appeal made tantalizing reference to this, virtually incriminating Wooley in their denial of Kish's appeal.

Whether based on a political scenario which required one sacrificial lamb for the "panhandler" issue in Toronto, or whether it was a case which could be proven against ANYONE, Kish is not guilty and obviously not guilty. Top on the list of this is the way Nordheimer widdles down the participation of females in both fights to Kish and Watts. And even if that is true - which it probably isn't - there is no real compelling evidence that Kish transported Watts's knife recklessly to the north fight, much less used it herself at the north fight.

There is equal reason to believe that other women were involved, not to mention that Nordheimer's stubborn insistence in thinking he knows Watts's whereabouts at all times casts equal doubt.

Yes, Canada frames street people. All the time, most of the time not within the criminal sphere.


Here's something I wrote for the Free Nyki Facebook Group as to why I think there very much was an agenda at work.

Is Nicole Kish the victim of a political agenda as well as a miscarriage of justice?

I believe this to be the case, and I reach that conclusion from the trial verdict itself. In this verdict, Justice Nordheimer explicitly concludes that Nyki was the panhandler who started the entire incident.

“He went to the ATM and, whether before or after using the machine, he and Mr. Hammond were approached by a female who asked for money. I am satisfied that the female who approached them was Nicole Kish. In that regard, I have concluded that Mr. Dranichak is mistaken in his identification of Ms. Watts as the person who approached him.”

Justice Nordheimer states that is he rejecting the evidence of the only witness to specifically offer an identification of the panhandler, George Dranichak, as not being Nicole Kish. He does this in spite of Dranichak having been the individual who was actually asked for money.

He then goes on to make one of his many unwarranted leaps of logic to create a fact not in evidence.
“It follows that if Ms. Kish was the person who was involved in the ensuing dispute, it was Ms. Kish who was involved when the dispute started. “

On this point Justice Nordheimer is not only rejecting the only testimony in the matter, and reaching an unsupported conclusion, he is also contradicting the Crown’s own narrative of the events in question, in which Nyki is explicitly not the panhandler but becomes involved afterwards. From the Crown’s opening remarks at trial:

“They stop at an outdoor green machine, TD green machine to get some funds. And there, they are approached by a woman on a bike, who wants some money. They refuse, and a shouting match ensues, and as they head west, additional quote "street people", join up with them, and one of which is Ms. Kish, the accused before the court, Nicole Kish.”

But for me, one point stands out above the others. There is nothing, neither in law nor logic, regarding the charges brought against Nyki that in any way depends upon her having been the panhandler. So if this conclusion, that contradicts the Crown’s assertions and the testimony of the only witness, is completely gratuitous as far as the law is concerned, why is it there?

To borrow Justice Nordheimer’s most infamous phrase, I find an “irresistible inference” that we are seeing the Agenda at work. Toronto had chafed for years under what was considered a veritable plague of aggressive panhandling. With Hammond’s death, a sensationalist media went into a frenzy of scapegoating, vilifying Nyki as the “Panhandler Killer”, while she and her family were barred by court order from responding in public. And so the Agenda was set, not just to prosecute Hammond’s killer, but to make an example of a panhandling street kid. Therefore Nyki must be the panhandler, regardless of the facts, as much as she must be the killer, again regardless of the facts.

Most take the phrase, “Crime must be punished”, to refer to the criminal. Alas, there are many in positions of power who view the institution of the Law more as an instrument of social control than as a means of obtaining justice. In this view, it really is the Crime that must be dealt with. Every incident of crime must be seen by the public to have been coupled with an example of punishment. Preferably imposed upon the actual criminal, but if the public never learns the difference, anyone will do for the social effect will be the same.

When the real criminal would otherwise escape, either because the authorities cannot identify or locate him, or because he is someone they are loathe to sanction for reasons of their own, punishing someone else becomes more important than leaving the Crime unpunished.

It is exactly this philosophy which must be vehemently rejected by all freedom loving persons wherever they may live. This rejection may be most keenly pressed against the authorities who warrant it by pushing with every legal, social and political means at our disposal to overturn such legal travesties whenever they occur.

While systemic reforms are desperately needed, we fight one case at a time. Nyki’s is one of the most blatant, and deserves our full attention.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
leonmyerson
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby leonmyerson » Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:05 pm

pmop57 wrote:The more I read about this case but also about the surrounding politics and the Canadian politics in general I more and more come turn the conclusion that over years and for to long a time Canada was successfully hiding the own political issues, failures and negative developments behind it's big neighbour. In Europe Canada still is and was always considered the "better" part of the American continent, more rights, more freedom, better environmental politics, no internal problem, functioning institutions ... . Canada successfully kept itself outside the big news. In the last years only the enormous destruction of wide until than untouched parts of nature became more and more an issue of public discussion.


What has truly amazed me the most about Canadian politics is that it took a sharp right turn into a punitive, authoritarian "tough on crime" mindset when the country had a fraction of the US crime rate and it had been declining for years. In the US, we at least had the "excuse" of a real sense that crime was out of control, as in more than 2000 homicides in NYC in a single year. That and the tragedy that Canada has done this just as the US is possibly starting to learn from its mistakes.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
leonmyerson
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:49 pm

After 8 years of Progressive Conservative government in the 1980s, concluding in early 1990s, the conservative split. Not only along ideological lines, but east/west.... leaving the "progressive-conservative" branch as a rump, and the newly formed, western-based Reform Party in competition for that part of the spectrum. Although not exact, the Reform Party people were also anxious to impose at social-conservatism not so evidence in what remained of the PCs.

This arrangement almost guaranteed the Liberal Party would form government, given the nature of our riding-system, with first-past-the-post going to Ottawa. The conservative vote was always split.

It was the Western reformers under Stephen Harper in the early 2000s who healed the rift, this time, though, with the social-conservatives now in charge.

Stephen Harper's crew have not been successful in implementing all their social-agenda - same-sex marriage came into being in Canada under their watch - but "prison reform" has been as you've described. They've been moderately successful in their "law and order" platform, when. really, there has been a lot of order.

Parallels with Texas are always being made - mainly that this Conservative prison-reform agenda was tried in the 1990s by Texas, and even conservative Texans now call that an expensive failure. It was expensive, and it did not even deliver on a law and order agenda.

The "political" nature of Nyki's situation has something else added to it - the perception of Toronto streets being littered with violent panhandlers. This was seen in how the media labelled this trial, when Nyki was not even a panhandler!

Just this week the new Toronto mayor (not Rob Ford!) had just spoken out agains "carding", where police have the right to ask you for I.D. regardless of what you've done; you could be just walking down the street. The claim, of course, is that this is an excuse for racial profiling, as I'm sure not many old-white men in expensive suits get so stopped on the street like this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/j ... -1.3103855

It is strange. This decade-long right turn Canada has taken is intent on finding solutions to non-existent problems.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Visual Proof of a Wrongful Conviction

Postby leonmyerson » Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:32 pm

The Hinge.docx


In his verdict, Justice Nordheimer makes it a central point of his reasoning that since there is "only one knife", and both Hammond and Nyki's blood is on it, she must have transported and used it. The attached file is a detailed analysis, including photographs, showing that another interpretation of the blood on the knife is not only possible, but a far better match to the evidence.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
leonmyerson
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:08 pm

Re: Visual Proof of a Wrongful Conviction

Postby Christine Bivens » Wed Aug 26, 2015 7:11 pm

leonmyerson wrote:
The Hinge.docx


In his verdict, Justice Nordheimer makes it a central point of his reasoning that since there is "only one knife", and both Hammond and Nyki's blood is on it, she must have transported and used it. The attached file is a detailed analysis, including photographs, showing that another interpretation of the blood on the knife is not only possible, but a far better match to the evidence.


This is brilliant Leonmyerson, thank you. I will be adding this to Nyki's casebook. Very well done!
Christine Bivens
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:13 am

Re: Visual Proof of a Wrongful Conviction

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:20 am

Christine Bivens wrote:
leonmyerson wrote:
The Hinge.docx


In his verdict, Justice Nordheimer makes it a central point of his reasoning that since there is "only one knife", and both Hammond and Nyki's blood is on it, she must have transported and used it. The attached file is a detailed analysis, including photographs, showing that another interpretation of the blood on the knife is not only possible, but a far better match to the evidence.


This is brilliant Leonmyerson, thank you. I will be adding this to Nyki's casebook. Very well done!

Agreed. It's very good. It could be a pretty strong point if an expert were to say that amputation of a finger or thumb tip was an unusual type of defensive wound in a knife fight. That would reinforce Leon's theory that Hammond cut off his own thumb tip while closing the knife. That in turn supports Faith's testimony that he took the knife from her. It would also make Nordheimer's narrative impossible.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13824
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Visual Proof of a Wrongful Conviction

Postby Samson » Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:42 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Christine Bivens wrote:
leonmyerson wrote:
The Hinge.docx


In his verdict, Justice Nordheimer makes it a central point of his reasoning that since there is "only one knife", and both Hammond and Nyki's blood is on it, she must have transported and used it. The attached file is a detailed analysis, including photographs, showing that another interpretation of the blood on the knife is not only possible, but a far better match to the evidence.


This is brilliant Leonmyerson, thank you. I will be adding this to Nyki's casebook. Very well done!

Agreed. It's very good. It could be a pretty strong point if an expert were to say that amputation of a finger or thumb tip was an unusual type of defensive wound in a knife fight. That would reinforce Leon's theory that Hammond cut off his own thumb tip while closing the knife. That in turn supports Faith's testimony that he took the knife from her. It would also make Nordheimer's narrative impossible.

After listening to the podcast I became convinced that Nyki is innocent. I am increasingly unimpressed by the assumption by society that judges have reasoning skills above average. Keep up the good work Clive, because this internet age enables feet to be held to the the fire.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sat Aug 29, 2015 9:33 am

Excellent work, Leon.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4453
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:22 pm

We added Leon's article to Injustice Anywhere. Please Tweet and Share. Get the conversation started!

http://www.injusticeanywhere.org/2015/08/29/the-nyki-kish-case-murder-weapon-or-tragic-mistake/
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4453
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:18 pm

Leon's opinions about the tying of Kish to being a panhandler is worth a second look.

His opinions have rewritten how I view this case. Up until reading it, I'd seen Nordheimer's finding that Nyki had been the original "panhandler" to be wrong, but not necessarily anything more than an irritant - given the larger issue of being falsely convicted of murder.

Leon is quite persuasive. In the climate in Toronto at that time, Nordheimer tragically pretty much had to cite here as the original panhandler, even though there was no evidence, really, that it was Nyki who had panhandled that evening. Also no evidence, really, that she'd ever panhandled.

Yet that because the rallying cry of the press.... just google the "Panhandler killer" and you'll see what I mean.

Why is it that a Canadian just is allowed to just make stuff up? In this case there is now a compelling argument to be made that as the evidence against the other three was seen for what it was - not evidence to sustain even sending them to trial - they simply had to convict someone.

Yes, in Canada. Nyki was simply at the end of that line and they could not let them all go.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:43 pm

My understanding is that the liberal party was swept into power. . . .Maybe that is hopeful for her?
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Wed Oct 21, 2015 7:52 pm

Desert Fox wrote:My understanding is that the liberal party was swept into power. . . .Maybe that is hopeful for her?

It most certainly cannot hurt. Yet remember that the Liberal party stated as the third party in Parliament with about 35 seats, and added about 150 newbies. It will be Nov 4 when Trudeau names his new cabinet, with the Minister of Justice being one of them. Any inquiries to new Liberal MPs will likely get a polite response referring the inquirer back to the remaining process which ultimately ends up in the M o J's hands.

Best to give it a while.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby roteoctober » Thu Oct 22, 2015 12:45 am

Bill Williams wrote:Leon's opinions about the tying of Kish to being a panhandler is worth a second look.

His opinions have rewritten how I view this case. Up until reading it, I'd seen Nordheimer's finding that Nyki had been the original "panhandler" to be wrong, but not necessarily anything more than an irritant - given the larger issue of being falsely convicted of murder.

Leon is quite persuasive. In the climate in Toronto at that time, Nordheimer tragically pretty much had to cite here as the original panhandler, even though there was no evidence, really, that it was Nyki who had panhandled that evening. Also no evidence, really, that she'd ever panhandled.

Yet that because the rallying cry of the press.... just google the "Panhandler killer" and you'll see what I mean.

Why is it that a Canadian just is allowed to just make stuff up? In this case there is now a compelling argument to be made that as the evidence against the other three was seen for what it was - not evidence to sustain even sending them to trial - they simply had to convict someone.

Yes, in Canada. Nyki was simply at the end of that line and they could not let them all go.


This is basically what I too think: Nyki Kish is a political prisoner.

Hopefully the change in Canada's political climate will help her too.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2431
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Thu Oct 22, 2015 8:03 pm

I was listening to a Podcast speaking about Cody Legebokoff and he essentially got the same potential punishment as Nyki and is a serial killer with four victims. . . . . .
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby pmop57 » Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:25 am

I am with roteoctocber. Nyki Kisk is a political prisoner. She was selected because was was 'errounosly' taken for a panhandler and at the same time Canadian to statuate an example to satisfy those opting for the clean streets acts.

Nordheimer should be disbarred, a country does nor need political Judges who follow personal agendas and invent or make cases fit their personal agendas or political and/or social opinions. Instead they apply law and respect it's rules.

Judges abusing their professional attribution and feeling the need to solve social problems will always fail and a always growing number of judicial miscarriag of justice and in consequence a growing number of wrongful convictions.

The judiciary should toally abstain from judging and sentencing to statuate examples on minorities who they consider people of lower value. And the politicians should ask themselves how much it is the consequence of the failure of their social politics.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Norm51 » Fri Nov 06, 2015 5:01 pm

I was at the appeal. The prosecutors said they couldn't re-try because they didn't have enough evidence to proceed with. RED FLAG. The judges suggested Man 1 - but the lawyer said no - it was m2 but just not Nyki. It just went downhill from there. In Canada the appeal has nothing to do with the accused - they aren't even allowed to the appeal. It's all about whether or not the judge made any mistakes. And who judges that - judges. We are only now starting to realise that police can't police police - when do we get to do something meaningful about judges policing judges.
Norm51
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:18 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Fri Nov 06, 2015 9:45 pm

Interestingly, I have been arguing the case with a Canadian Crow Prosecutor with them invested in her guilt for what I can see as no good reason.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Nov 07, 2015 1:27 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Interestingly, I have been arguing the case with a Canadian Crow Prosecutor with them invested in her guilt for what I can see as no good reason.

Where?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Sat Nov 07, 2015 4:20 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Interestingly, I have been arguing the case with a Canadian Crow Prosecutor with them invested in her guilt for what I can see as no good reason.

Where?


On the SGU political forum. . . .You would need to join to see and/or post because the political forum is unable to be seen by non members. The situation appears to be that there is little hope for her however even with a change of government. I think I would rather be prosecuted in the US than Canada because you have more chances to appeal.

Here is the basic forum
http://sguforums.com/index.php
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Nov 07, 2015 4:51 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Interestingly, I have been arguing the case with a Canadian Crow Prosecutor with them invested in her guilt for what I can see as no good reason.

Is the substance of the Crown prosecutor's argument simply that the process was followed?

Frankly, just on the basis of this short exchange between you and me, I severely doubt your debater is a Crown prosecutor. Simply on the basis that few, if any, would engage an anonymous public like that on an internet forum.

The only one I ever saw was a Deputy D.A. in the States who joined into a Facebook war on the very case he was involved in. Kept making threats to charge other folk who he saw as principals in the matter, but had escaped arrest.

Something is always ritten in Denmark when a faux-professional joins in like that, particularly anonymously.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:07 pm

I have a feeling me really is a crown prosecutors. . . .Has that feel for various reasons. The SGU forums actually has few fakers compared to other forums.

Here is one of his posts
This is a very weird cross you've climbed on, Desert Fox, my guess based on the many biased and less-than-reliable "Free Nyki"-esque sites out there. Our courts are not political instruments like in the US; no elected judges, very difficult to remove, etc. We take independence of the judiciary very seriously.

Re: this case, she was tried by judge alone, so we have a full set of reasons for the ruling, something we would not have had if this was a jury trial. Justice Nordheimer, fully aware of the frailties of eyewitness evidence, carefully sorted through the contrasting stories and came to evidentiary conclusions. From the decision:

Quote from: Justice Nordheimer

None of the witnesses are one hundred percent clear in their recollections of what they saw nor are their recollections entirely consistent from one witness to the next. No one should be surprised at either of those realities. No one remembers every detail of what they observe. No one sees an event in exactly the same way as another observer of that same event. No one remembers the very same things as others do. All of that is simply human nature.

Further, there were some variations in what some of the witnesses said that they saw between the different times in which they have been called upon to give their evidence. In most cases, these witnesses have been required to recite these events at least three times: first to the police; then at the preliminary hearing; and finally at this trial. Those renditions have occurred over a period of about three and one-half years - a passage of time that brings its own problems to the quality of the evidence in this case. Delay does not enhance the quality of any witness' evidence.

Those are realities that occur in most criminal cases. They are at least part of the reason why any trier of fact, whether judge or jury, is permitted to accept some, none or all of any witness' evidence. Put simply, a witness' evidence does not have to be taken on an all or nothing basis.



Absent alternative evidence, Nordheimer's reasons benefit from the presumption of regularity - he was there, you and I were not.

Moreover, a unanimous Court of Appeal upheld the verdict, finding no basis for any of the grounds of appeal. To my knowledge (and I did just look this up in Westlaw, though it's not always 100% up to date) they have not sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which leads me to believe that the lawyers in this case do not see any likely success if this is taken to a final appeal. There simply isn't an evidentiary basis for the alternative theories.

I apologize if this comes across as an argument from authority, but it should be noted that this case is not the subject of masses of legal writing or analysis, suggesting that the issues here are not particularly controversial or novel.


If you would like, I will try to post more?
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:26 pm

Whoever he is, he's wise enough to recognize that he is, as admitted, arguing from authority.

It also does not sound like he's got a dog in the fight, except to (in general terms) defend the system he's inside.

Strangely he's highlighted the very section of Justice Nordheimer's reasons where I concluded the opposite. That **despite** giving a good account of the frailties of eye-witness testimony - even in situations more straightforward than a street brawl - Nordheimer simply plows ahead constructing a guilt scenario **despite** what he'd said.

I'd wonder if this Crown was familiar with **any** wrongful convictions? Indeed, the same system sentenced 14 y.o. Steven Truscott to hang in the 'fifties.

Everyone of the two dozen most notable wrongful convictions in Canada started in a way that your friend could have said with confidence the exact same thing; allowing for an eventual, "Oh I guess I was wrong in that case."

Wrongful convictions in Canada are more numerous that an insider to the system would care to concede.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:37 pm

Here is another one. . . Of note is that we have discussed this issue previously as well

Quote from: Desert Fox on November 06, 2015, 01:31:02 AM
I will not blow smoke and argue that it is impossible she is guilty. It is not some crazy convoluted plot like police / prosecutors argue in some cases. That said, I don't see any compelling (or even solid evidence) of guilt. The way I think of it is as you, me, or anybody could be at a party and somebody gets stabbed. Maybe there is a fight and you end up getting cut too. Suddenly, you are being prosecuted for murder.


With this position, at least reasonable people can disagree. I don't agree with you, and think there is more than sufficient evidence, as have four judges at this point. This isn't an argument from authority, it's simply a fact; persons whose entire job is to review evidence and make findings have done so, in the context of an adversarial proceeding, and found, or upheld, guilt.

teethering has correctly indicated that the release proceedings and procedures in Canada are distinct from those in the US. I am not an expert in the procedures, but we have previously discussed them at length in relation to this matter in another thread. I would caution against any arguments from analogy to the US given our very different criminal justice systems.

As for a pardon, that's not really a thing any more. As in, they don't exist in Canada; the last government replaced them with "record suspensions". They only come long after release in any event. Clemency, or even the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, may be more what you are thinking of, but those also don't really happen; there's no history of pardons by heads of state like in the US. We trust the judicial system to do its job, and at least in this case, it appears to have. As I've noted before, Ms. Kish has yet to exhaust her appeals, which I think is telling as regards legal issues in the case.


The trouble is that I think the other appeals need pretty much an act of god to actually work
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:38 pm

Last one from this discussion
"Mr. Dranichak and Mr. Hammond began the evening with their co-workers as Mr. Dranichak described. Mr. Hammond and Mr. Dranichak split off from their co-workers and went to a club at Queen and Bathurst Streets where they spent some time drinking. They left that club in search of food. They were under the influence of the alcohol that they had been consuming since early in the evening. They walked westbound along Queen Street West. Mr. Dranichak decided that he needed some cash. He saw a TD Bank ATM at the corner of Queen and Euclid. He went to the ATM and, whether before or after using the machine, he and Mr. Hammond were approached by a female who asked for money. I am satisfied that the female who approached them was Nicole Kish." - R v Kish, 2011 ONSC 1303 at para 80
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:39 pm

What I'm saying is that he's not contributing anything of substance. He's not climbing into the evidence to tell you why he thinks she's guilty.

He's saying what we all know. Usually the system works well. Hoo-ray for him pointing that out. We would worry, wouldn't we, if that weren't true!!!!! My God almighty, this guy is the Oracle at Delphi!!

Not.

He sounds like someone with experience writing parking tickets.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:49 pm

Bill Williams wrote:Wrongful convictions in Canada are more numerous that an insider to the system would care to concede.


Part of what really bugs me is the attitude that the Canadian system is better than the US system where it seems from that.
For example, in Canada you are interrogated without a lawyer and while you can refuse to speak, you cannot refuse to have them speak to you.
Can you imagine an officer just accusing hour after hour without a lawyer allowed to be present.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Sat Nov 07, 2015 5:51 pm

Bill Williams wrote:What I'm saying is that he's not contributing anything of substance. He's not climbing into the evidence to tell you why he thinks she's guilty.

He's saying what we all know. Usually the system works well. Hoo-ray for him pointing that out. We would worry, wouldn't we, if that weren't true!!!!! My God almighty, this guy is the Oracle at Delphi!!

Not.

He sounds like someone with experience writing parking tickets.


Well, his job might be crown prosecutor on very low level court cases. . . . . Basically the equivalent of parking tickets.
I did invite him to join the forum to defend his position.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Sun Nov 08, 2015 11:18 am

I am having a bit of trouble explaining how a person can be in a crowd where you get hurt yet don't really have a clue what is going on. . . .
I have a poster on the other forum stating that because Ms Kish was stabbed that she had to be involved. On the surface it sounds like a reasonable argument.
Wondering if anybody has any sources I can point to?
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Nov 08, 2015 4:23 pm

Desert Fox wrote:I am having a bit of trouble explaining how a person can be in a crowd where you get hurt yet don't really have a clue what is going on. . . .
I have a poster on the other forum stating that because Ms Kish was stabbed that she had to be involved. On the surface it sounds like a reasonable argument.
Wondering if anybody has any sources I can point to?

I'm not sure there are sources. That thing, "because Ms Kish was stabbed that she had to be involved" is basically the nub of Nordheimer's "irrefutable inference". Both Leon and Clive had addressed that issue at length.

However, one of the reasons I think it is cherry-picking to pick out Nyki from the melee is that there are many reasons - even in Nordheimer's recreation - why Nyki could have been stabbed, and as uninvolved a Fresh, Watts, Wooley and perhaps a dozen other unnamed people - including Hal Amero.

It is simply arbitrary justice to pick out Kish from a melee. That's the nub of it. The irresistable infernce" of guilt depends on a nice compact, knwable north-sdie fight: knowable as to its combatants, which Nordheimer arbitrarily narrows to a minimum numer. It also abitraily does not account for when Watts made her own transition from the south to the north, which she obviously did - she was seen on film tending to Kish's wound.

Kish had to have been the sole female to have made the transition from south to north, because Nordheimer has Kish as the sole person who could have logically have transported the knife from south to north - in that act alone making her as guilty as second degree murder as if she'd done the stabbing herself.

My point is - on the issue of the unknowability of Watts' own journey from south to north, on what basis is that hung on Kish to the exclusion of others?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bruce Fischer » Mon Mar 14, 2016 3:41 am

Petition seeks investigation of Nicole “Nyki” Kish case in Canada

http://www.groundreport.com/petition-seeks-investigation-of-nicole-nyki-kish-case-in-canada/
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4453
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:52 pm

I was talking to a Crown prosecutor who tried to argue that this was a bad case to take up. . . . .Also tried to argue that there were still other avenues.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Mar 14, 2016 3:06 pm

Desert Fox wrote:I was talking to a Crown prosecutor who tried to argue that this was a bad case to take up. . . . .Also tried to argue that there were still other avenues.

The reason? What I heard from a trusted source that the reason this was a difficult-win, was because the provincial court of appeal has come and gone, and there's little if anything to merit a rare appeal to the Supreme Court.

This source ventured an opinion that it would have been better to have been found guilty by a jury, because then there'd be no record of reasons for conviction. I can't remember everything said, but it sounded like a lack of reasons gives more latitude for judges up the line to make reasonable variations of what might or might not be held as factual.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:04 pm

I believe he linked back to the court documents as an argument
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:08 pm

Desert Fox wrote:I believe he linked back to the court documents as an argument

What about the court documents?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:56 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I believe he linked back to the court documents as an argument

What about the court documents?


He appeared to have been persuaded by the judge's arguments
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Mar 15, 2016 5:39 am

Bill Williams wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I was talking to a Crown prosecutor who tried to argue that this was a bad case to take up. . . . .Also tried to argue that there were still other avenues.

The reason? What I heard from a trusted source that the reason this was a difficult-win, was because the provincial court of appeal has come and gone, and there's little if anything to merit a rare appeal to the Supreme Court.

This source ventured an opinion that it would have been better to have been found guilty by a jury, because then there'd be no record of reasons for conviction. I can't remember everything said, but it sounded like a lack of reasons gives more latitude for judges up the line to make reasonable variations of what might or might not be held as factual.

You would think it would work the other way - that with reasoning that can be clearly and directly falsified, as here, there would be a better prospect of succeeding with an appeal. That there was a full judgment is the main reason I got into this case in the first place. Often (for the UK read 'never') there is no clue as to what swayed the jury, leaving an appellate court to guess and to assume things we don't actually know. Here, we know. And what we know is it was manifestly wrong:

1 to assume there was only one knife
2 to treat the incident as involving only 6 people
3 to make scientific findings not based on any evidence (mixed DNA at the hinge, Hammond not carrying a knife in the pasta vid)
4 to conflate at least three women into only two (Nalah Saleh is almost certainly the woman who tied her red shirt around Nyki's arm, not Faith Watts, who can be seen in the pasta vid and on the City TV film still wearing her shirt) and not to draw the inference from doing so that if a judge can go so badly wrong the standard of beyond reasonable doubt cannot possibly have been met, not remotely

and to allow these errors to displace the caution the law requires to be applied to ID cases. We are also entitled to treat with suspicion the judge's hand-waving of the lost CCTV evidence and the negligence of Giroux in not tracing people like Gary Flynn, the woman who can't finish her sentences and the now-deceased, red-haired street kid (to name only a few)

It was also wrong of the appeal court to improve on the judge's version by holding or assuming that it was Woolley who said 'you die tonight' in a noticeably hoarse voice that does not fit Woolley (who has a rather high-pitched scream when agitated) but happens to fit Hal Amero very well, perhaps by coincidence. The appeal court not only reinforced the judge's finding on the pasta vid but went beyond it - apparently they could see Hammond was uninjured too!

The beguiling myth of judicial omniscience is the heart of the problem in this case.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13824
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:57 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I was talking to a Crown prosecutor who tried to argue that this was a bad case to take up. . . . .Also tried to argue that there were still other avenues.

The reason? What I heard from a trusted source that the reason this was a difficult-win, was because the provincial court of appeal has come and gone, and there's little if anything to merit a rare appeal to the Supreme Court.

This source ventured an opinion that it would have been better to have been found guilty by a jury, because then there'd be no record of reasons for conviction. I can't remember everything said, but it sounded like a lack of reasons gives more latitude for judges up the line to make reasonable variations of what might or might not be held as factual.

You would think it would work the other way - that with reasoning that can be clearly and directly falsified, as here, there would be a better prospect of succeeding with an appeal. That there was a full judgment is the main reason I got into this case in the first place. Often (for the UK read 'never') there is no clue as to what swayed the jury, leaving an appellate court to guess and to assume things we don't actually know. Here, we know. And what we know is it was manifestly wrong:

This sounds like what I heard. Since there is no clue as to how the jury determined things, any judge up the line is free to make reasonable assumptions. There's that word again - "reasonable".

If what we know is manifestly wrong, then the appeal judges seem to be bound, in law, to that wrongness unless there's something overridingly new. Didn't the Ontario court of Appeals mention that one fact must be considered factual, simply on the grounds that the defence did not contest it to their court? It sounds to lay-ears that being manifestly wrong is not at issue within that higher body.

Clive Wismayer wrote:1 to assume there was only one knife
2 to treat the incident as involving only 6 people
3 to make scientific findings not based on any evidence (mixed DNA at the hinge, Hammond not carrying a knife in the pasta vid)
4 to conflate at least three women into only two (Nalah Saleh is almost certainly the woman who tied her red shirt around Nyki's arm, not Faith Watts, who can be seen in the pasta vid and on the City TV film still wearing her shirt) and not to draw the inference from doing so that if a judge can go so badly wrong the standard of beyond reasonable doubt cannot possibly have been met, not remotely

Did the appeal challenge any of this, and does the process even allow it - without accompanying new evidence?

Clive Wismayer wrote:and to allow these errors to displace the caution the law requires to be applied to ID cases. We are also entitled to treat with suspicion the judge's hand-waving of the lost CCTV evidence and the negligence of Giroux in not tracing people like Gary Flynn, the woman who can't finish her sentences and the now-deceased, red-haired street kid (to name only a few)

It was also wrong of the appeal court to improve on the judge's version by holding or assuming that it was Woolley who said 'you die tonight' in a noticeably hoarse voice that does not fit Woolley (who has a rather high-pitched scream when agitated) but happens to fit Hal Amero very well, perhaps by coincidence. The appeal court not only reinforced the judge's finding on the pasta vid but went beyond it - apparently they could see Hammond was uninjured too!

The beguiling myth of judicial omniscience is the heart of the problem in this case.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:19 am

Bill Williams wrote:snip

If what we know is manifestly wrong, then the appeal judges seem to be bound, in law, to that wrongness unless there's something overridingly new. Didn't the Ontario court of Appeals mention that one fact must be considered factual, simply on the grounds that the defence did not contest it to their court? It sounds to lay-ears that being manifestly wrong is not at issue within that higher body.

Yes, there was something funny like that but I have forgotten what it was.

Did the appeal challenge any of this, and does the process even allow it - without accompanying new evidence?


The appeal did not take all the available points or even the best ones imho. It was essentially 'Faith did it' ( I don't think she did FWIW but the appeal team also played the case as though there was a cast of 6 characters only) and some not terribly clear verbiage. I would be amazed if new evidence could not be introduced in an Ontario appeal but with the usual qualifier that it can't be evidence that could with reasonable diligence have been introduced at trial. An appeal is not a second crack after seeing what didn't work the first time. That means, unfortunately, that the defendant is stuck with case strategy decisions that worked out badly (e.g. not giving evidence, seeking a judge-alone trial and not giving Giroux a hard time).
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13824
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:56 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:snip

If what we know is manifestly wrong, then the appeal judges seem to be bound, in law, to that wrongness unless there's something overridingly new. Didn't the Ontario court of Appeals mention that one fact must be considered factual, simply on the grounds that the defence did not contest it to their court? It sounds to lay-ears that being manifestly wrong is not at issue within that higher body.

Yes, there was something funny like that but I have forgotten what it was.


It's even worse that I thought. The appeal court listed the uncontested facts the defence had from the lower court:

    The appellant does not dispute:
    1. that whoever stabbed Ross Hammond is guilty of second degree murder;

    2. that if she brought the knife to the fight and passed it to one of her friends with the intent that it be used on Hammond, she is guilty of
    second degree murder as an aider;

    3. the trial judge’s finding that the appellant and Faith Watts were involved in the south side altercation;

    4. that it was Faith Watts who stayed on the south side of Queen Street to tend to Fresh after he had been beaten by Hammond; and

    5. that the appellant was involved in the fight on the north side.

Is that not Nordheimer's case right there, essentially uncontested by the defence? This seems to imply that even the defence concedes that the only person in all of creation who could have brought the knife from south to north was Nyki; thus #2 is in play.

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Did the appeal challenge any of this, and does the process even allow it - without accompanying new evidence?


The appeal did not take all the available points or even the best ones imho. It was essentially 'Faith did it' ( I don't think she did FWIW but the appeal team also played the case as though there was a cast of 6 characters only) and some not terribly clear verbiage. I would be amazed if new evidence could not be introduced in an Ontario appeal but with the usual qualifier that it can't be evidence that could with reasonable diligence have been introduced at trial. An appeal is not a second crack after seeing what didn't work the first time. That means, unfortunately, that the defendant is stuck with case strategy decisions that worked out badly (e.g. not giving evidence, seeking a judge-alone trial and not giving Giroux a hard time).

Did the defence, at appeal, challenge the "6 persons only" scenario? As a layperson to all this, perhaps the only thing I "get" about the process is that at appeal the defence is stuck with their fact-finding trial strategies; esp. the ones which did not work.

Makes Italy look positively enlightened by comparison.

The two grounds for appeal that the Appeals Court said came from the defence were that Nordheimer reached an unreasonable verdict based on accepting unreliable evidence; and, that the judge ignored exculpatory eivdence that at least three other people could have been the stabber. (Ten points if you can spot the flaw in using that, alone, as a ground for appeal!)

The Court rejected the appeal on the first ground because there was no requirement, in law, for witnesses to be 100% certain; also that there is no reason, really, to believe Nordheimer erred in limiting the numbers involved in each fight:

    [60] The evidence is clear, however, that Watts remained on the south side and
    did not go to the north side until the fight on the north side was over. At that time,
    she went over to assist her friend, the appellant, who was bleeding.

    [61] There were only four people involved in the fight on the south side of the
    streetcar – Watts, the appellant, Fresh and Hammond. The knife is seen by both
    Paget and Stopford on the south side. Watts and Fresh stay on the south side,
    which leaves only the appellant or Hammond to take the knife to the fight on the
    north side. Hammond, as indicated earlier, is captured on video between the two
    fights – he does not have a knife in either hand and does not appear to be
    seriously injured at that point. By process of elimination, that leaves only the
    appellant who could have taken the knife to the north side.

For the second ground, the Appeal's judge basically says that there's a combination of things. One is:

    [90] In this court, we begin with two important defence concessions:
    1. The appellant does not dispute the trial judge’s finding that it was the
    appellant and Faith Watts who were involved in the south side
    altercation; and
    2. The appellant does not dispute that it was Faith Watts on the south side
    tending to Fresh after he was beaten by Hammond.

Which means that not contesting those basic facts locks the defence into accepting basic points of Nordheimer's irresistible inference. Combine this with the facts that the defence did not argue "other stabbers" at trial, expect for perhaps Faith Watts - and having the judge rule she wasn't is not a "misapprehension of evidence", and as such is not (in law) exculpatory.

It looks to my untrained eye that the defence not contesting key things at appeal was what, in the opinion of the appeals judges, gave away the farm.

On another matter, I thought you'd like this statement from the Appeal reasons.....

    Hammond was caught on video surveillance from the One of a Kind Pasta
    Shop between the south and north side altercations. He does not appear in that
    video to have suffered any debilitating injury and he does not have a knife in his
    hands
    .
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish

Postby erasmus44 » Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:38 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:There are many unstated assumptions in the Judge's analysis and some or all of them may be supported by the record but: 1. how do we know that Nicole was the only person other than the victim who was stabbed - I know she was the only person who HUNG AROUND AND was stabbed but lots of people fled the scene. How can we be sure that one of the people who fled the scene was not stabbed? 2. How can we be sure that only two knives were involved? How can we be sure that someone who fled the scene did not take a knife with him or her? I know that only two knives have been found but that doesn't mean that those are the only two knives involved in the crime? 3. How can we be sure that Hammond didn't have a knife on him when he fled the first altercation? I guess we have a picture or testimony that he was empty handed but that doesn't mean that he didn't have a knife on him(in his pocket, tucked into his belt,etc.)? 4. Assuming that the knife which created the fatal wound (just which wound was it?) was in Nicole's hand, how can we be sure that this is second degree murder rather than manslaughter, self-defense, etc.? Unless we know exactly who was attacking whom and whether Nicole had a reasonable apprehension that she was in danger, how can we make this determination? Could this have been a case in which the knife was in his hand and he was attacking her but she grabbed his wrist and managed to twist it so that the knife cut him? Could he have stabbed at her, missed and hit himself? 5. Assuming Hammond wound up with the knife at the end - doesn't this suggest the likelihood of a third knife? Is the State's theory that she attacked him with a knife and then, only after receiving a serious of fatal wounds, Hammond wound up getting the knife away from her and cutting her? Doesn't it make more sense to assume that he would have been more capable of defending himself before, rather than after, receiving a serious of fatal knife wounds? Does the State believe that the knife wounds somehow empowered him? Isn't it more likely that he was attacked with a completely different knife, never got that knife away from the assailant and the assailant fled with the knife?
This case has the look and feel of a bureaucratic response to "street people" in which "one of the street people" will have to be punished as a reprisal for a crime against a "businessman" and since it is really hard to put together a plausible case against anyone else, Nicole is it - the Third Reich used this system to maintain control over restive populations but they usually executed 10 of the local people as a reprisal for killing one of their own. I don't think that the bureaucracy will accept the notion that the facts are so unclear that we must admit that we don't have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt against anyone and therefore the "crime"(even that is in doubt) must go unpunished. As an American, it reminds me a little bit of the South in the 1930s.

Erasmus, I am with you on all of that except self defence. Where I come from, that has to be raised by the defence before the prosecution is obliged to negate it and Nyki did not give evidence or otherwise raise the issue.

On your first point we know she was not the only one who got stabbed as a male person showed a witness stab wounds he received in and while walking away from the melee, saying he had been stabbed 19 times before. None of the witnesses saw this person getting stabbed. Indeed, no witness claims to have seen any knife being used at all.


I agree on the self-defense point. Otherwise, my original post stands. The conviction rests on a set of totally unfounded assumptions that were made, I guess, to "simplify" a very messy and complex factual situation. The reality is that the government screwed up the investigation and that they have no idea whatsoever what really went down. Rather than be honest and admit this, they decided that Nyki was the best target. I thought that our justice system had kind of a monopoly on this kind of idiotic "reasoning" but I guess our buddies to the North didn't want us to feel lonely. Maybe they watch too much American television.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 2977
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Mar 15, 2016 2:11 pm

All your points are well taken, Bill.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13824
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:15 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:All your points are well taken, Bill.

Which ones?

One point seems to be that, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the defence - in essence - presented no appeal at all. If those 5 issues that the Court of Appeal says the defence did not dispute are true, then those 5 things, in essence, comprise in total Nordheimer's irresistible inference. Is that not a reasonable summary of the Court of Appeal?

By not challenging the "6 person only" scenario, such people confined to two hermetically-sealed scenes (the south, then the north side) - with Hammond and Kish being the only common people to both scenes, then what was the defence trying to accomplish in its brief? Yet it is ludicrous to accept things like a fictional one-way door between those two hermetically-sealed scenes.

If one goes back to Nordheimer's reason for judgement and takes a black marker and marks out his conclusions - leaving only the, "This witness says......" summary which he gives - the reasonable reader (in my opinion) is left with a chaotic melee, that perhaps has a definable start, but which quickly deteriorates; deteriorates in a manner that no witness really can be sure what it devolved into; save that one person was left mortally wounded.

Perhaps the scene around the ATM is somewhat definable; albeit that Nordheimer gets the ID of the female-panhandler wrong. As Draniak leaves the scene and Hammond attacks Fresh, there is perhaps still a definable scene which can be pulled out. But I'd argue that even that is tenuous.

It's this business of a hermetically sealed barrier between the south-side fight (where unless stopped, Hammond could have killed Fresh) and the north-side where:

    1) it is known who passed through it to the exclusion of all others
    2) it is known who carried a knife through, or even IF indeed a knife WAS carried through, and not already on the north side
    3) and finally, it is known who was waiting patiently on the north side to receive two, and only two combatants
    4) and it is known that only 6 people could have been involved in #1, #2, and #3
.....is simply not consistent with what can reasonably be known. Granted, a lot of this comes from stuff that never made it to trial. Yet, I cannot get the image out of my mind of the trolley driver telling investigators under oath that he saw two, not one but two women pass in front of his window at the front of the trolley. That did not make it to court. Procedurally it was probably not admissible at the Appeal, because it should have reasonably been presented at trial. (Why that did not happen astounds me, a lay person to all this.)

Two things. Street fights don't work the neatly compartmentalized way as concluded by Nordheimer. Yet Nordheimer's own presentation of the basic evidence - before he draws conclusions - actually DOES match how street fights are reported. It's confusing, can't tell who did what, etc. etc. Strangely at trial a lot of the witnesses themselves confessed that upfront - again, fully consistent with what a reasonable person might expect.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Tue Mar 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Is this case a matter of "denial of effective assistance of counsel" - does Canada have such a concept?
erasmus44
 
Posts: 2977
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Tue Mar 15, 2016 8:35 pm

erasmus44 wrote:Is this case a matter of "denial of effective assistance of counsel" - does Canada have such a concept?

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Procedure_and_Practice/Trials/Ineffective_Counsel
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Mar 16, 2016 1:17 am

erasmus44 wrote:Is this case a matter of "denial of effective assistance of counsel" - does Canada have such a concept?

That's a tricky one. Even if they pan out badly, I don't see how counsel can be faulted for the type of strategy decisions I mentioned. OTOH, I do find striking that a number of seemingly strong, even decisive, forensic points that were apparent to me did not feature at all on the appeal or very much at trial. But then I had the benefit of hindsight. And I also understand now, better than I did before studying this case, the extreme danger of these affray-type cases and the great difficulty faced by the defence which, after all, cut the crown's case to pieces but still lost. I bet you have encountered judges like Nordheimer - outwardly the soul of reason but capable of bat shit crazy decisions. He set about solving the crime for chrissake. I have two theories:

1 the judge is simply a very bad judge, or
2 the judge and Giroux are members of the same lodge

That's only one theory, though, isn't it.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13824
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Wed Mar 16, 2016 1:27 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:Is this case a matter of "denial of effective assistance of counsel" - does Canada have such a concept?

That's a tricky one. Even if they pan out badly, I don't see how counsel can be faulted for the type of strategy decisions I mentioned. OTOH, I do find striking that a number of seemingly strong, even decisive, forensic points that were apparent to me did not feature at all on the appeal or very much at trial. But then I had the benefit of hindsight. And I also understand now, better than I did before studying this case, the extreme danger of these affray-type cases and the great difficulty faced by the defence which, after all, cut the crown's case to pieces but still lost. I bet you have encountered judges like Nordheimer - outwardly the soul of reason but capable of bat shit crazy decisions. He set about solving the crime for chrissake. I have two theories:

1 the judge is simply a very bad judge, or
2 the judge and Giroux are members of the same lodge

That's only one theory, though, isn't it.

This doesn't quite rise to that other case where the lead detective and prosecutor were having a sexual liaison..... but that's the other thing about the Reasons for Judgement Nordheimer wrote, isn't it?

Rather than rule on the case which the prosecution bright to court, he reinvestigated it - even if only in his own mind. What do know, maybe that is allowed. But it certainly makes it seem like a defence lawyer has plenty of opportunity to say, "We were never presented with those issues at trial, then we read that they were part of an irresistible inference the judge dreamt up. Sheesh."

Is this not true in the Kish case?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Mar 16, 2016 1:45 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:Is this case a matter of "denial of effective assistance of counsel" - does Canada have such a concept?

That's a tricky one. Even if they pan out badly, I don't see how counsel can be faulted for the type of strategy decisions I mentioned. OTOH, I do find striking that a number of seemingly strong, even decisive, forensic points that were apparent to me did not feature at all on the appeal or very much at trial. But then I had the benefit of hindsight. And I also understand now, better than I did before studying this case, the extreme danger of these affray-type cases and the great difficulty faced by the defence which, after all, cut the crown's case to pieces but still lost. I bet you have encountered judges like Nordheimer - outwardly the soul of reason but capable of bat shit crazy decisions. He set about solving the crime for chrissake. I have two theories:

1 the judge is simply a very bad judge, or
2 the judge and Giroux are members of the same lodge

That's only one theory, though, isn't it.

This doesn't quite rise to that other case where the lead detective and prosecutor were having a sexual liaison..... but that's the other thing about the Reasons for Judgement Nordheimer wrote, isn't it?

Rather than rule on the case which the prosecution bright to court, he reinvestigated it - even if only in his own mind. What do know, maybe that is allowed. But it certainly makes it seem like a defence lawyer has plenty of opportunity to say, "We were never presented with those issues at trial, then we read that they were part of an irresistible inference the judge dreamt up. Sheesh."

Is this not true in the Kish case?

I believe it is but I also think it's allowed. The crown doesn't have to prove its pet theory of the crime but nonetheless, it should set alarm bells ringing when their considered view of the case, formed over the course of years, falls apart on contact with the enemy.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13824
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:44 pm

Re: uncontested facts.
I wish I could count the cases in which I was in meetings where it was argued that we should concede certain points or refrain from making certain arguments because it would help our "credibility" and then we contested the points or made the arguments and discovered to our surprise that the arguments were successful. I even had one case I won where I was tempted to file a motion for reconsideration. Reminds me of what William F. Buckley said when he was running for Mayor of New York City and was asked what he would do if it was announced that he had won - his answer - "demand an immediate recount" was priceless.
Defense counsel should be very careful about unnecessary concessions - they can haunt you for the life of the case (and in this situation the life of the defendant).
erasmus44
 
Posts: 2977
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:43 am

erasmus44 wrote:Re: uncontested facts.
I wish I could count the cases in which I was in meetings where it was argued that we should concede certain points or refrain from making certain arguments because it would help our "credibility" and then we contested the points or made the arguments and discovered to our surprise that the arguments were successful. I even had one case I won where I was tempted to file a motion for reconsideration. Reminds me of what William F. Buckley said when he was running for Mayor of New York City and was asked what he would do if it was announced that he had won - his answer - "demand an immediate recount" was priceless.
Defense counsel should be very careful about unnecessary concessions - they can haunt you for the life of the case (and in this situation the life of the defendant).

It is very satisfying when this happens. I had a case in which our counsel told me it was hopeless to argue that a scrap of paper with some notes scribbled on it could be considered 'an instrument of transfer' (of shares in a company). In exasperation, I told him to argue the point anyway just in case. He did, in a feeble, unenthusiastic way - but the judge ruled in our favour and it turned the case out way, a very important case too. Unless a point is so bad it stinks, it's worth arguing everything. But that's civil law. Criminal dynamics are different. If you want to take the point that Giroux is a corrupt, lying cop out to cover his lazy, negligent ass, there will be consequences, whether the point is good or not. OTOH if you were suing him for misfeasance in public office or some such then you would hurl everything you could dream up at him.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13824
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Thu May 12, 2016 9:01 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:This doesn't quite rise to that other case where the lead detective and prosecutor were having a sexual liaison..... but that's the other thing about the Reasons for Judgement Nordheimer wrote, isn't it?

Rather than rule on the case which the prosecution bright to court, he reinvestigated it - even if only in his own mind. What do know, maybe that is allowed. But it certainly makes it seem like a defence lawyer has plenty of opportunity to say, "We were never presented with those issues at trial, then we read that they were part of an irresistible inference the judge dreamt up. Sheesh."

Is this not true in the Kish case?

I believe it is but I also think it's allowed. The crown doesn't have to prove its pet theory of the crime but nonetheless, it should set alarm bells ringing when their considered view of the case, formed over the course of years, falls apart on contact with the enemy.

For various reasons I'm now reading through the evidence given at the preliminary hearing by both Stopford and Paget, the trolley-riders who had the front-row seat to the first, south-side fight. It occurred right under their window as Hammond pummeled Fresh - to the point where Paget wanted to get off the trolley and render assistance to Fresh.

Their testimony at that time was continually checked with previous statements they'd given to police.

So here's the thing from compleat ignorance as to how this works/what's allowed at the eventual trial. As I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong - at the conclusion of the prelim, the crown's working theory was that Kish had fatally wounded Hammond on the south side fight, principally on Paget's evidence that only one woman, a small woman, had approached Hammond with a knife to dislodge him from Fresh. Stopford on the other hand spoke of two women doing this, one of whom had a knife in her teeth. Stopford at the prelim could not rule out at least three more women at that fight, any one of whom (or all three) could have been as involved as the two she said were the main defenders of Fresh.

But here's the deal - after Hammond stopped beating Fresh, and Fresh had been dragged unconscious back to the southern curb - after Hammond had taunted his attackers with, "Who wants some of this!?" or other words.....

..... Hammond retires to the west, to the rear of the double-length trolley and disappears from P/S's field of view. P/S get distracted by Fresh's condition and whether or not P. will depart the trolley to render aid, something S. does not want him to do because she'd seen a knife in play.

But the next time they (somewhat) positively I.D. either Kish or Hammond - Hammond is now on the north-side of the street, well to the NE of the trolley being kicked while he's down - kicked by three people of indeterminate gender. Stopford says she remembers a woman running across the front of the trolley (which is facing east), cannot remember if she's holding a knife - then they both see two women in the middle of the street, one woman takes off her shirt (more than likely Watts) to wrap on Kish's arm which had been cut. (In a sworn deposition which never made it to court, the trolley driver said he saw two women cross in front of him, right to left.....)

From this - and others - correct me if I'm wrong, the Crown's theory was that Hammond had been fatally wounded at the south-side fight. It is simply unknown when possession of the knife had passed to Hammond (at south or north, and who he'd taken it from).

Fast forward to Justice Nordheimer's irresistible inference. Nordheimer writes that his decision is based on an inference about intervening activity, stuff that was not part of the Crown's narrative at the preliminary hearing. Does not the defence use the preliminary hearing to devise a strategy - knowing what their client is accused of, and what the narrative is which will be used against them?

It just seems strange that the decision recounted/written once the trial is over, is so at odds with what the defence heard at trial or at the prelim.

Nothing about this conviction seems safe.

As an aside - it still seems unreasonable to reduce this whole thing to two fights. It still has all the hallmarks of a street melee, one where obviously the event which lit the fuse was the altercation at the ATM. Nordheimer arguably has the wrong people involved in that altercation, at least as far as the "street-kid" side of things is concerned. But Stopford speaks of between "five and fifteen" people involved, and two women at the south-fight, with possible three more involved in some manner even if only yelling insults.

And at the north-fight there's at least three people of unknown gender laying the smack on a prone Hammond; and it seems obvious that Hammond took a different, long round-about route to get to the NE of the trolley.....did Hammond pick up these guys along the way who had followed him from the SW rear of the trolley, or were those guys waiting for him at the NE?

Nothing about this conviction of one person seems safe.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu May 12, 2016 9:28 am

I could write a post 12 pages long in answer to that. I do not have a short answer. If the crown's theory was that he was stabbed on the south side it's pretty rich for the appeal court later to claim as a decisive argument to the contrary that he can be seen entering the pasta vid (in which he crosses to the north) uninjured! What the fuck! But you are assuming Hammond was Hammond and that the fights were sequential. I am not sure about either of those things. You are familiar with the tram driver's evidence. Then there is another bus passenger who saw simultaneous fights. Then there is Amanda Jones who saw a whole bunch of jocks running away West after fighting on the south side. Who the fuck were they? You can hear her describing that event contemporaneously in her 911 call. As far as she was concerned Fresh was the victim of a mob attack carried out by jocks. Then there was the fight over by the door near the trolley stop. That might be a third fight. A jock knocked out a street kid and then said 'who wants more?' or something. Hammond? How the heck did he get over there?

And on and on and on. Let me know when you figure it out.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13824
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Thu May 12, 2016 10:10 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:I could write a post 12 pages long in answer to that.

Not sure what the "that" refers to. Please note, when I say that it is unsafe to convict one person of this crime, I am not implying that they got one of the many perps. It is at the very least unsafe to convict Kish of this crime - just the little bit of the prelim stuff I've read of two of the main witnesses confirms that. Both Stopford and Paget can be commended for being unwilling to be "led", and be clear about what they know and (more important) what they don't. It's also illuminating to read the transcript - where both Paget and Stopford are being presented with what they'd originally given as witness statements. There's one place where Stopford defends saying one thing with her witness statement, but now (at the prelim) she cannot be so sure. She sticks to her guns, even though it looks bad; but she's committed to the truth as she sees it and seems to be letting the chips fall where they may.

Clive Wismayer wrote:I do not have a short answer. If the crown's theory was that he was stabbed on the south side it's pretty rich for the appeal court later to claim as a decisive argument to the contrary that he can be seen entering the pasta vid (in which he crosses to the north) uninjured! What the fuck!

I'm reminded that during the 1981 assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan, that no one knew Reagan had been hit until a few minutes later. How would the Court of Appeal know if Hammond had or had not been stabbed by that point? He most certainly freed himself from the smack-down he'd been getting on the north-side to the NE of the trolley! Stopford and Paget both recalled how Hammond was assaulting the cab-driver through the driver's side window, which is why (perhaps) the cab-driver drove away with Hammond clinging to the outside.

But the point is - there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that people who've been shot/stabbed can function well once the adrenaline starts flowing; shock doesn't set in until later. The Court of Appeal's statement only makes the overall judicial scenario-making all that bizarre, really.

Clive Wismayer wrote:But you are assuming Hammond was Hammond and that the fights were sequential. I am not sure about either of those things. You are familiar with the tram driver's evidence. Then there is another bus passenger who saw simultaneous fights. Then there is Amanda Jones who saw a whole bunch of jocks running away West after fighting on the south side. Who the fuck were they? You can hear her describing that event contemporaneously in her 911 call. As far as she was concerned Fresh was the victim of a mob attack carried out by jocks. Then there was the fight over by the door near the trolley stop. That might be a third fight. A jock knocked out a street kid and then said 'who wants more?' or something. Hammond? How the heck did he get over there?

You are right. As for the fights Hammond was involved in, there was the south fight, then there was the NE fight on the other side of both the street and the trolley. That much IS sequential and in that order. But it is unknown what happened, for instance, between Hammond retiring from the south-fight, to the west along the south-side of the east-facing trolley. Whether he subsequently reversed field and crossed in front of the trolley, or simply kept going the long-way-around, is unknown. He very well could have picked up assailants in that long, round-about route which ended up at the far NE of the street in relation to the trolley. Certainly there was opportunity along that route to get involved in other extra-curricular activity - either directed at him, or a fight which had nothing to do with the original ATM incident.

The short of it is - one could drive themselves crazy trying to figure out a timeline that involved Kish and Hammond. Maybe Nordheimer had a mental-health day, and decided to go the suspect-centric route and limit himself to what he thought he knew about Kish and Hammond.

Clive Wismayer wrote:And on and on and on. Let me know when you figure it out.

Don't hold your breath.

I'm waiting for the hint of convergence onto one timeline, around some neatly defined and sequential events. About this, Nordheimer was absolutely right when he said that trying to reconstruct a timeline based on this sort of confused, multi-witness confusion was fraught with difficulty and contained the potential for error. Yet, then he went ahead and did exactly that.

So if you're asking what I've figured out, that's what it looks like so far. Who knows, maybe the smoking gun is lurking in some other transcript of evidence, and Canada can be assured Ms. Kish was safely convicted. So far, that smoking gun is nowhere to be seen.

If someone can point to it, I'm all eyes.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu May 12, 2016 11:02 am

You are right. As for the fights Hammond was involved in, there was the south fight, then there was the NE fight on the other side of both the street and the trolley. That much IS sequential and in that order.

No, you misunderstand me. I do not accept it was Hammond in the fight seen by Paget and Stopford. It might well have been but it might also have been the other one, er, Dranichak. Hammond might have been the one knocking someone out over by the door near the trolley stop. Tell me how you know it was Hammond? If it was, then he had a time machine if we believe the trolley driver because he saw simultaneous fights on either side of him and they were both the fights which Nordheimer arranged sequentially and both (per you and Nordheimer) involved Hammond.

Recall:

1 it was Dranichak who had aroused the principal ire of the mob and with whim Fresh likely had issues to settle (Dranichak had pushed him ito a store front window) and
2 Dranichak, if not the fighter by the bus, just disappeared in a puff of smoke somehow.

I do not claim it was Dranichak, only that I do not know and that it is not possible for anyone else to know, certainly not Nordheimer or the CA. And yet they found her guilty based on this among number of suppositions that just are not sufficiently clearly evidenced (I chose the last three words very carefully and stress them all).
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13824
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Thu May 12, 2016 1:50 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
You are right. As for the fights Hammond was involved in, there was the south fight, then there was the NE fight on the other side of both the street and the trolley. That much IS sequential and in that order.

No, you misunderstand me. I do not accept it was Hammond in the fight seen by Paget and Stopford. It might well have been but it might also have been the other one, er, Dranichak. Hammond might have been the one knocking someone out over by the door near the trolley stop. Tell me how you know it was Hammond? If it was, then he had a time machine if we believe the trolley driver because he saw simultaneous fights on either side of him and they were both the fights which Nordheimer arranged sequentially and both (per you and Nordheimer) involved Hammond.

Recall:

1 it was Dranichak who had aroused the principal ire of the mob and with whim Fresh likely had issues to settle (Dranichak had pushed him ito a store front window) and
2 Dranichak, if not the fighter by the bus, just disappeared in a puff of smoke somehow.

I do not claim it was Dranichak, only that I do not know and that it is not possible for anyone else to know, certainly not Nordheimer or the CA. And yet they found her guilty based on this among number of suppositions that just are not sufficiently clearly evidenced (I chose the last three words very carefully and stress them all).

In other conversations with heavyweight lawyers recently, I've noted that they tend to choose their words carefully. It's annoying, really. Because you phrase has four words - you've mysteriously omitted the "not" as being an important modifier to what you claim as careful. Then again I may be nitpicking.

You are the first I've run into who has expressed serious doubts (or ynclearly evidenced claims) that the "jock" under the Stopford/Paget trolley window, the one faced by a small woman with a knife, may have been Dranichak, or at least could have been him with as much certainty as it being Hammond.

To this, one then might go back to Nordheimer and see what he says.....

    Mr. Dranichak says that he and Mr. Hammond tried to move away from this group by going diagonally across Queen Street from north to south. When they reached the south side, the two became separated with Mr. Hammond being to the east of Mr. Dranichak. Mr. Dranichak says that he was then attacked by a female, who he identified as Ms. Kish..........

    Mr. Dranichak says that Ms. Kish hit him in the knee with her bike and the male began punching him. Mr. Dranichak fell to the ground and was kicked by the male. The male then attempted to gouge at his eyes. This caused Mr. Dranichak to get up, grab the male and shove him into a store front window. Mr. Dranichak then says that he escaped by jumping into a taxi.
I don't accept that Dranichak was correct in I.D.ing Kish, since she did not have the bike and was not the panhandler at the ATM. (Although, Nordheimer says she was.)

But in any event, Dranichak's testimony is that he left the scene - him to the west of Hammond - which I assume was just prior to the first fight; unless you're saying that the incident described WAS the first fight.

It does, however, speak to their being more than two fights. But be that as it may, both Stopford and Paget I.D. the guy who left clinging to the taxi from the north fight, as the same jock who'd almost killed Fresh on the south side, right below their window. To me, that speaks to consecutive events - south-side, then north (NE) side, then flight clinging to taxi. Dranichak is long gone by this time. Who are the other jock-like people around, who had drawn the ire of the "streetkids" at the ATM?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu May 12, 2016 3:08 pm

It's idle to discuss it. Christine is right. You can rearrange things many ways. Still, I think the evidence that two jocks, our two, tried to board the tram. Dranichak had not yet dsappeared.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13824
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Thu May 12, 2016 4:04 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:It's idle to discuss it.

Truer words never spoken, with one exception. Esp. at this point, unless monumental new evidence shows up a ministerial review is rolling the dice. If I did not loudly enough start this with the caveat, "At this point this may simply be parlour-game stuff which at the end of the day helps no one," then it's said now. The exception might be that someone chancing upon all this might themselves feel a need to piece it all together, and actually consider that for convictions to be safe, they need to be.... ah, er, safe convictions.

Clive Wismayer wrote:Christine is right. You can rearrange things many ways.

It appears so. It's at that point that many have smelled a rat when reading Nordheimer's reasons. It's not so much that he's wrong, per se, but it's that he's not right to the exclusion of so many other reasonable ways to put the scene together.

Clive Wismayer wrote:Still, I think the evidence that two jocks, our two, tried to board the tram. Dranichak had not yet dsappeared.

Yet Nordheimer has him departing the scene by taxi after been hit in the knee by a bike.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri May 13, 2016 12:49 am

Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:It's idle to discuss it.

Truer words never spoken, with one exception. Esp. at this point, unless monumental new evidence shows up a ministerial review is rolling the dice. If I did not loudly enough start this with the caveat, "At this point this may simply be parlour-game stuff which at the end of the day helps no one," then it's said now. The exception might be that someone chancing upon all this might themselves feel a need to piece it all together, and actually consider that for convictions to be safe, they need to be.... ah, er, safe convictions.

Clive Wismayer wrote:Christine is right. You can rearrange things many ways.

It appears so. It's at that point that many have smelled a rat when reading Nordheimer's reasons. It's not so much that he's wrong, per se, but it's that he's not right to the exclusion of so many other reasonable ways to put the scene together.

Clive Wismayer wrote:Still, I think the evidence that two jocks, our two, tried to board the tram. Dranichak had not yet dsappeared.

Yet Nordheimer has him departing the scene by taxi after been hit in the knee by a bike.

No, Dranichak makes it to the tram, even in Nordheimer's account.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13824
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Fri May 13, 2016 8:02 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:No, Dranichak makes it to the tram, even in Nordheimer's account.

My bad. It was Dranichak, acc. to Nordheimer, who told the court he left the scene following the incident with the bike:

    [12] Mr. Dranichak says that Ms. Kish hit him in the knee with her bike and the male began punching him. Mr. Dranichak fell to the ground and was kicked by the male. The male then attempted to gouge at his eyes. This caused Mr. Dranichak to get up, grab the male and shove him into a store iront window. Mr. Dranichak then says that he escaped by jumping into a taxi.

ETA - turns out N. believed little of what Dranichak had to say.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Jun 28, 2016 12:04 am

I was asked to explain something I said on the JREF/ISF thread having made the point that amateur observers of the cases we discuss should not assume the lawyers, cops and judges cover all the bases in their analyses. It is very possible, even normal, for strong forensic (I do not mean 'scientific' but 'usable in argument in court') points to elude those closely-involved, which makes crowd-sourcing a good way of scooping up what might otherwise be missed.

I illustrated my point by reference to an observation made by Leon Myerson in this case. Leon has noted a known type of injury resulting from the careless closing of a lock-knife is amputation of the tip of a thumb. Hammond had such an injury. If he acquired it in the manner suggested by Leon, the crown's case against Nyki, certainly as theorised by judge Nordheimer, falls apart completely. In that theory, he runs across queen street, arriving in shot in the pasta vid with no knife (in fact, a strongly questionable point for another forensic reason spotted by none of the players), gets involved in more fighting, gets stabbed, fatally, wrests the knife (the only knife) from his attacker, slashes Nyki's arm, boards a taxi with knife in hand, blade clearly showing (seen by several witnesses) and slumps to the ground dropping the knife with blade still open. Well, in all that, when (never mind why) did he close and re-open the knife? He didn't.

In a plausible alternative scenario, actually supported by evidence, he whips the knife out of Faith Watts hand, folds it and puts it in his back pocket, cutting off the top of his thumb, before retrieving and opening it to deter further aggression from another knife-weilder, an act which, for all we know, may itself have been so misconstrued in the heat of the moment as to have been fatal in its consequences. This scenario can be squared well enough with the fragmentary accounts to sow reasonable doubt at bottom.

It would be interesting to know how common this type of amputation is in regular knife fights. I am no expert but my guess is that it would be rare. If I am right, that would strengthen Leon's insight further.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13824
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Samson » Tue Jun 28, 2016 5:01 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:I was asked to explain something I said on the JREF/ISF thread having made the point that amateur observers of the cases we discuss should not assume the lawyers, cops and judges cover all the bases in their analyses. It is very possible, even normal, for strong forensic (I do not mean 'scientific' but 'usable in argument in court') points to elude those closely-involved, which makes crowd-sourcing a good way of scooping up what might otherwise be missed.

I illustrated my point by reference to an observation made by Leon Myerson in this case. Leon has noted a known type of injury resulting from the careless closing of a lock-knife is amputation of the tip of a thumb. Hammond had such an injury. If he acquired it in the manner suggested by Leon, the crown's case against Nyki, certainly as theorised by judge Nordheimer, falls apart completely. In that theory, he runs across queen street, arriving in shot in the pasta vid with no knife (in fact, a strongly questionable point for another forensic reason spotted by none of the players), gets involved in more fighting, gets stabbed, fatally, wrests the knife (the only knife) from his attacker, slashes Nyki's arm, boards a taxi with knife in hand, blade clearly showing (seen by several witnesses) and slumps to the ground dropping the knife with blade still open. Well, in all that, when (never mind why) did he close and re-open the knife? He didn't.

In a plausible alternative scenario, actually supported by evidence, he whips the knife out of Faith Watts hand, folds it and puts it in his back pocket, cutting off the top of his thumb, before retrieving and opening it to deter further aggression from another knife-weilder, an act which, for all we know, may itself have been so misconstrued in the heat of the moment as to have been fatal in its consequences. This scenario can be squared well enough with the fragmentary accounts to sow reasonable doubt at bottom.

It would be interesting to know how common this type of amputation is in regular knife fights. I am no expert but my guess is that it would be rare. If I am right, that would strengthen Leon's insight further.

It looks like an argument that the public might get their arms around, much more so than who was on which side of the street when.
I like it, because it conforms with the general theory I like of the missing domino. They gotta all topple for the prosecution or the case is a fraud.
There is always a fundamental data point that is a dark cloud over the prosecution. Think of any case where we later learn for sure someone innocent was in jail.

eta, I know several people with foreshortened digits including myself. In all cases they explain how they did it to themselves, in my case woodworking. I will be alert to any account of this being the result of a knife fight, but won't hold my breath.
Justice is an issue not a word. Find one issue that isn't fair and change that, and that's justice.
Samson
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:37 pm

An interesting comment about the Canadian legal system
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/12/world/rob ... index.html

Judge to woman in rape case: 'Why couldn't you just keep your knees together?'

(CNN)A judge in Canada is facing removal from the bench for his conduct when he asked a woman in a rape case why she couldn't "just keep [her] knees together."
Federal Court Judge Robin Camp is in the midst of a week-long judicial council hearing, which will determine whether he ought to be booted from his position.

The case in question took place in 2014 when Camp was a provincial court judge. (He became a Federal Judge last year.)

The 19-year-old woman said she was raped over a bathroom sink during a house party.

According to records of the trial, Camp asked her why she didn't "skew her pelvis" or push her bottom into the sink to avoid penetration. He openly wondered, "Why couldn't you just keep your knees together?"

On the subject of sex in general, and sex with young women in particular, he said, "Young wom[e]n want to have sex, particularly if they're drunk."
In a different part of the trial, he said "Some sex and pain sometimes go together...that's not necessarily a bad thing."

Camp, 64, ultimately acquitted the man charged with the crime, and then told him:
"I want you to tell your friends, your male friends, that they have to be far more gentle with women. They have to be far more patient. And they have to be very careful. To protect themselves, they have to be very careful."

The verdict was overturned on appeal. A new trial is scheduled for November.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:16 pm

When Judge Camp acquitted, esp. in the context of those comments, it's perhaps a good thing that Canada's system allows the prosecution to appeal the fairness of the acquittal.

As for the Kish case, the conviction was appealed and the appeals court upheld it. To this layperson unfamiliar with the nuances of what courts look for, the denial of the defence appeal was as baffling as Nordheimer's original finding.

While the content of what I believe went wrong at trial(s) with the Kish case was not as headline-grabbing, as what now plagues Judge Camp......

...... when you look into it, it is as baffling to consider how a judge could get away with reasoning like Nordheimer did - not to mention that his verdict was sustained.

I mean who gives a hoot about what happens to a street panhandler....... Oh wait, the actual evidence suggests it was not Nyki panhandling.

That's only the first layer of onion peeled back. I could go on. But dammit when the other three suspects had to be let go because of such a thin case against them, it makes one wonder what the political fallout in Toronto would have been if all four had been let go.

Onion layer #2 and I promised not to go on. Maybe the witness recreation of the various street melee's that night were so consistent that the judge could peg key actions on to a timeline with a moral certainty enough so as to convict.

But when the obsessed among us actually DO go through the hopelessly conflicted witness testimony, such conflict typical when a third party tries to get a sensible account of a street brawl.....

The Nordheimer's "irresistable inference" leading to him convicting her looks very resistable.

Onion layer #3.

Warning - there are more and pulling them back will make you wonder if Nordheimer exhibited only less headline grabbing injustice than Judge Camp.

For me - Nyki at least deserves a new trial. But beware, if you get obsessed with this and reach the 20th onion layer with no end in sight, you'll wonder aloud if Canada really does have a fair and measured justice system.

We already know about Judge Camp. My money is on some future review of the Kish conviction will equally say, "what was Nordheimer thinking?"
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Wed Sep 14, 2016 7:41 pm

As you might know, on a forum I am on, there is a crown prosecutor and I think I actually would rather be tried in US courts in many cases instead of a Canadian court.
Granted, with the poor quality of Public Defenders, there is arguments to be had on the US legal system as well.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Wed Sep 14, 2016 9:18 pm

Desert Fox wrote:As you might know, on a forum I am on, there is a crown prosecutor and I think I actually would rather be tried in US courts in many cases instead of a Canadian court.
Granted, with the poor quality of Public Defenders, there is arguments to be had on the US legal system as well.

Once upon a time I volunteered in a Crown office. I never ran across anyone other than honest, hard working, underpaid, fair-minded people in those positions.

I witnessed about a dozen times when something happened at trial where the crown said they no longer believed that continuing was in the public interest.

Everything since has been an eye opener.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:18 pm

This point made 5 years ago on this thread deserves repeating, perhaps as a way to start this thread again. It goes like this:

According to Justice Nordheimer's reasons for judgement, what was Nyki Kish's crime? I don't think you know, so let me put it this way:

.... what is the crime Nyki Kish committed, acc. to Nordheimer? More important, what was the action Nyki Kish took that night that justifies a second degree murder conviction?

My contention is that acc. to Justice Nordheimer's reason for decision, the crucial action is not the act of stabbing. That is optional acc. to him. For instance, Nordmeimer assumes that Kish is responsible for the wounds Hammond receives as she breaks up the first fight, the one where Mr. Fresh is left unconscious, and an unidentified woman manages to get Hammond to quit the beat-down on Fresh and flee to the north side.

At the conclusion of fight #1, Nyki Kish has yet to do anything illegal. This is acc. to Nordheimer. Nordheimer than addresses the possibility that he could be in error to conclude that Kish had been the one to deliver the fatal stabs at the second fight, the one on the north side.

In his decision, Justice Nordheimer wrote:[137] I would also note that, even if that conclusion is in error, the only other possible explanation for the wounds to Mr. Hammond is that Ms. Kish, having brought the knife to the second fight, then passed it to one of the males who were involved in the fight and that he then inflicted the stab wounds. In that scenario, Ms. Kish would have aided that act and be liable as a party to the offence.


Nordheimer assumes that it was Kish to the exclusion of all others who'd left the first fight to pursue Hammond, with Watts' knife to the exclusion of all other knives. For what Kish is dealing with today, 6 years following her unsafe conviction, everything else is commentary. The second fight actually does not matter within the reasoning N. used to sentence her to prison.

So - on what evidence does N. convict her of that crime, the one in transporting the knife?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:59 am

You know the answer already, Stu. Nordheimer found:

1 there was only one knife
2 ergo all stab wounds were caused by that knife
3 the female with a knife in her mouth at fight no. 1 was Nyki Kish

It follows she stabbed Hammond in fight 2 or passed the knife to his assailant (a remarkable alternative possibility when you consider the myth that only Watts, Fresh and Woolley were on the street kids team, two of those were in baulk and the third was never seriously considered a murder suspect because, apparently, Giroux believed him - so who was the mystery fifth person?)

As unfortunately reinforced by the appeal court, the doubtful identification by Stopford and Paget trumps everything including forensic evidence that fails to support the crown's ever-evolving theory, directly contrary evidence and even the law itself which requires that ID evidence be treated with special caution.

Go figure.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13824
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Apr 23, 2017 7:38 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:You know the answer already, Stu. Nordheimer found:

1 there was only one knife
2 ergo all stab wounds were caused by that knife
3 the female with a knife in her mouth at fight no. 1 was Nyki Kish

It follows she stabbed Hammond in fight 2 or passed the knife to his assailant (a remarkable alternative possibility when you consider the myth that only Watts, Fresh and Woolley were on the street kids team, two of those were in baulk and the third was never seriously considered a murder suspect because, apparently, Giroux believed him - so who was the mystery fifth person?)

As unfortunately reinforced by the appeal court, the doubtful identification by Stopford and Paget trumps everything including forensic evidence that fails to support the crown's ever-evolving theory, directly contrary evidence and even the law itself which requires that ID evidence be treated with special caution.

Go figure.

I'm reeling from the observation - cannot remember where I read it - that after Hammond had been forced from beating Fresh below the southside streetcar window....

.... that he retired to the west to disappear around the back of the double-length vehicle.

True, he ended up to the NE of the street-car to be beaten himself; but all accounts have the southside-intervening-woman crossing the street in front of the east-bound streettram.

The driver reports it was two women, but here's the deal..... if she/they had been in pursuit why didn't she/they pursue?

IMO this casts further doubt in Nordheimer's reconstruction, where he can so confidently assign motive to an already shaky action. Be that as it may, if Kish is found guilty simply on the grounds of transport of knife with reckless intent - thus rendering it optional that she be found to have done the actual stabbing - what if she'd never pursued him?

That forces Nordheimer's scenario to actually prove the stabbing had been done by Kish, without the 'pursuit with knife' back up.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:49 am

I don't see that as a strong point TBH.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13824
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:00 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:I don't see that as a strong point TBH.

What would you have said if you weren't being honest? :tongue:

A "strong point" in which context? The context of what might be relevant to a hoped-for ministerial review to come? Or a strong point in trying to write out what is really true, as if one was writing a book?

Why isn't it a strong point to erode Nordheimer's claim that Kish had "pursued" Hammond with a knife, in his view the only knife at the scene? If Hammond had been forced from Fresh by escaping to the immediate-West, and Kish had ended up at the NE fight going another route, how is that pursuit?

Five years ago the question was asked, what crime was Kish really convicted of, in Nordheimer's recreation? When he says that even if it was shown she'd not done the actual stabbing, then by taking the knife in pursuit of him makes her just as convictable.... means that in fact, Nordheimer believes less in the reality of her doing the stabbing, but at least can (in his mind) hold her accountable for the real crime that - in his mind - no one can question: her transport of the knife in pursuit of Hammond. Everything past that is optional in his recreation.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:07 am

Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:I don't see that as a strong point TBH.

What would you have said if you weren't being honest? :tongue:

A "strong point" in which context? The context of what might be relevant to a hoped-for ministerial review to come? Or a strong point in trying to write out what is really true, as if one was writing a book?

Why isn't it a strong point to erode Nordheimer's claim that Kish had "pursued" Hammond with a knife, in his view the only knife at the scene? If Hammond had been forced from Fresh by escaping to the immediate-West, and Kish had ended up at the NE fight going another route, how is that pursuit?

Five years ago the question was asked, what crime was Kish really convicted of, in Nordheimer's recreation? When he says that even if it was shown she'd not done the actual stabbing, then by taking the knife in pursuit of him makes her just as convictable.... means that in fact, Nordheimer believes less in the reality of her doing the stabbing, but at least can (in his mind) hold her accountable for the real crime that - in his mind - no one can question: her transport of the knife in pursuit of Hammond. Everything past that is optional in his recreation.

We can be reasonably sure he passed behind the streetcar given the direction from which he appears in the pasta vid. I don't see why, assuming guilt for a moment, Nyki can't have headed him off via the front. But so what? I just don't see this as a major (or any) problem with the judgment. 'Pursued', if he used that or some such word, does not entail that she dogged his footsteps stride for stride.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13824
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:04 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:We can be reasonably sure he passed behind the streetcar given the direction from which he appears in the pasta vid. I don't see why, assuming guilt for a moment, Nyki can't have headed him off via the front. But so what? I just don't see this as a major (or any) problem with the judgment. 'Pursued', if he used that or some such word, does not entail that she dogged his footsteps stride for stride.

From this seat....

Nordheimer himself begins his reasoning with all the proper cautions about the perils of a case based on witness ID evidence, esp. in the context of a street brawl. He then proceeds as if he, himself is immune from all that - and he's not a witness, he's just a guy cherry-picking a path from the south-fight (where Kish has not committed a crime yet) to the church steps where Hammond escaped to by clinging to a taxi, with Watts' knife in his possession.

There are multiple, some-mutually exclusive narratives possible for someone to reconstruct. You could do it, I could do it. Nordheimer did it and sealed his with his "irresistible inference" claim.

From an already tenuous narrative where Nordheimer has to cherry pick which witness to believe, when he disbelieves that very same witness later on, and then when he helps out the witnesses by filing in with his own inferences.....

From this seat it suddenly becomes important to consider that if Kish is convictable simply on the transport of the knife between fights, in pursuit of Hammond, then there needs to be someone on-site who said, "I saw Kish run after Hammond with the knife," or else that part of the narrative simply becomes part of what Nordheimer originally said was a danger with this kind of ID case.

It just makes it worse to consider that one of the few facts one can glean from this is that Hammond retired from the south fight - not to the NE via the front of the east-bound trolley, but - by going westbound along a double-length bus, and then eventually being seen at the NE fight.

Would not the word "pursuit" then require either Kish, or the "intervening woman" (the one who managed to stop Hammond from beating Fresh) to perhaps follow Hammond to the west? Or had they agreed to eventually reconnoiter at the NE with Hammond taking the long way around? I mean, a pursuer would have thought their prey had been fleeing via the west!

That one action of Hammond's, with the "intervening woman" going in a differing direction pokes one more hole in Nordheimer's narrative, one that has holes in it to begin with - as we went about ignoring his own wisdom by writing about his own irresistible inference.

It's more than nothing.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:15 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:We can be reasonably sure he passed behind the streetcar given the direction from which he appears in the pasta vid. I don't see why, assuming guilt for a moment, Nyki can't have headed him off via the front. But so what? I just don't see this as a major (or any) problem with the judgment. 'Pursued', if he used that or some such word, does not entail that she dogged his footsteps stride for stride.

From this seat....

Nordheimer himself begins his reasoning with all the proper cautions about the perils of a case based on witness ID evidence, esp. in the context of a street brawl. He then proceeds as if he, himself is immune from all that - and he's not a witness, he's just a guy cherry-picking a path from the south-fight (where Kish has not committed a crime yet) to the church steps where Hammond escaped to by clinging to a taxi, with Watts' knife in his possession.

There are multiple, some-mutually exclusive narratives possible for someone to reconstruct. You could do it, I could do it. Nordheimer did it and sealed his with his "irresistible inference" claim.

From an already tenuous narrative where Nordheimer has to cherry pick which witness to believe, when he disbelieves that very same witness later on, and then when he helps out the witnesses by filing in with his own inferences.....

From this seat it suddenly becomes important to consider that if Kish is convictable simply on the transport of the knife between fights, in pursuit of Hammond, then there needs to be someone on-site who said, "I saw Kish run after Hammond with the knife," or else that part of the narrative simply becomes part of what Nordheimer originally said was a danger with this kind of ID case.

It just makes it worse to consider that one of the few facts one can glean from this is that Hammond retired from the south fight - not to the NE via the front of the east-bound trolley, but - by going westbound along a double-length bus, and then eventually being seen at the NE fight.

Would not the word "pursuit" then require either Kish, or the "intervening woman" (the one who managed to stop Hammond from beating Fresh) to perhaps follow Hammond to the west? Or had they agreed to eventually reconnoiter at the NE with Hammond taking the long way around? I mean, a pursuer would have thought their prey had been fleeing via the west!

That one action of Hammond's, with the "intervening woman" going in a differing direction pokes one more hole in Nordheimer's narrative, one that has holes in it to begin with - as we went about ignoring his own wisdom by writing about his own irresistible inference.

It's more than nothing.

This is wrong IMO. There just needs to be a witness her placing her in position X and another in position Y. Stopford and Paget count (in the judge's view) for the former and Patsiopoulos for the latter.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13824
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:31 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:It's more than nothing.

This is wrong IMO. There just needs to be a witness her placing her in position X and another in position Y. Stopford and Paget count (in the judge's view) for the former and Patsiopoulos for the latter.

I would have to bow to your opinion, given my lack of training. Yet as a layperson trying to make sense of the many narratives possible which begin with the south fight and end with Hammond at the steps with the knife, I'd want to see more that just....

Maybe person A saw her at Point X and person B saw her at point Y.

If the "intervening woman" at Point X was pursuing Hammond with reckless intent, why did she not pursue?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Apr 23, 2017 7:23 pm

I believe the following to be a fair description and summary of Justice Nordheimer’s “case against Nicole Kish”, which he wrote created the “irresistible inference” that she was convictable of second degree murder in the death of Ross Hammond. These points are based on the Justice's recreation of the chain of possession of the only knife which stabbed anyone that night, from the moment that the “first fight” ended, to when Hammond found himself on the church steps, himself with the knife far afield from what is termed the “second fight”.

Some terms:
“the first fight” was on the south-side of Queen Street, at the south-side of a stopped, east-bound street-car. N. says this was between Hammond who was beating Doug Fresh, with Faith Watts and Nicole Kish trying to render assistance to Fresh.

“the second fight” was to the NE of the street-car, on the north-side of Queen Street

“The intervening woman” is the woman credited with dislodging Hammond from Fresh on the south-side, “first-fight” causing Hammond to eventually make his way to the north-east side of the street.

Nordheimer draws his “irresistible inference” from his determination of the identity of the only woman in the second fight, and the fact that of all the people stabbed, only one woman was, so this must have been Nicole Kish who was undeniably stabbed. Even though below the “intervening woman” and Kish are cited differently, Nordheimer eventually equates the two.

The points below start with the first fight. This is because acc. to Nordheimer no crime attributable to Nicole Kish has happened until that fight’s conclusion, more specifically, not until the "intervening woman" left that fight to follow Hammond, with the knife with malicious intent.


The facts as found by Nordheimer are thus:

1) There were two altercations - the first fight where Ross Hammond bests and beats Douglas Fresh. It is a fight broken up by the intervention of a woman. There are two women at the first fight, one woman remains to tend to Mr. Fresh lying on the ground, the woman who had done the "intervening" pursues Hammond to the site of "the second fight".

2) Whereas no one says that they saw the "intervening" woman had stabbed Hammond in the back (forensics later confirm he had been non-fatally pierced by a knife in the back), witnesses say this woman's intervention undeniably stopped Hammond's beating of Fresh, and caused Hammond to flee to the site of "the second fight". Hammond is undeniably stabbed in the back. The "intervening" woman is undeniably the one who pursues Hammond.

3) Many witnesses see a woman with a knife, and it is in the "intervening" woman's possession during the first fight. The Justice assumes that the woman uses a knife to superficially wound Ross Hammond in the back, in a successful attempt to stop the beating Mr. Hammond was inflicting upon Mr. Fresh. Because of #3, this can only be Watts's knife.

4) There are only two knives present at most at any of the altercations - one belonging to Faith Watts, which afterwards has both Ross Hammond's as well as Nicole Kish's blood on it. Douglas Fresh, Watts's boyfriend, also has a knife, and it is found afterwards forensically clean. There is only one knife at the second fight, and Hammond manages to leave with that knife, and he and it are found at the church steps some distance away once Hammond manages to get away.

5) While no one sees Ross Hammond stabbed in either fight, witnesses credit the woman with the knife as being the one to stop the beating that Fresh is receiving by "becoming involved" in the first fight. Forensics show Hammond sustains knife wounds in the back in the "first fight", and he sustains the eventual fatal knife chest-wounds in "the second fight".

6) Nicole Kish is unwounded in the first fight.

7) Watts’s knife has to be in both locations, at the site of the first fight and at the site of the second. The only person who could have transported it to both places was the "intervening woman", regardless of her identity.

8) The "intervening" woman (now assumed to possess the knife) is seen pursuing Hammond to the other side of the streetcar, the only other woman at the first altercation remains with Douglas Fresh at that site. Although this remaining woman is never id’ed, Nordheimer assumes it must have been Faith Watts because it is her boyfriend who had sustained the beating.

9) Therefore, the Justice finds that Faith Watts cannot be the woman in the second fight because of the fact that it is Ms. Watts who attends to her boyfriend, Mr. Fresh. Mr. Fresh's blood was found on Ms. Watts supporting this assertion.

10) The Justice assumes that it is the same woman who is in sole possession of Faith Watts' knife at both fights, and there is only one woman in the second fight. This is because the female who stopped the first fight is observed following Hammond to the second altercation while the other remained with Fresh.

11) Hammond's hands are seen to be empty following the first fight on CCTV video (now gone), as he moves to the area where the second fight begins. In this second fight, Hammond manages to take possession of the knife after he has sustained his wounds. Hammond then wounds the sole woman present at the second fight, and Nicole Hammond is the sole woman stabbed that night. There is no indication by anyone that another woman was stabbed at any other time or that any other woman was involved in the second fight.

12) In the second fight, many witnesses see Hammonds' hands as well as the lone woman's hands vigourously moving back and forth towards and from each other, consistent with it being a fight.

13) If Ms. Watts is by some unknown movement the sole female in the second fight, Nordheimer proposes, how then did Nicole Kish get stabbed? No woman was stabbed in the first fight.

14) If Nicole Kish is the only woman in the second fight, and the only one up to that point in possession of the knife, and Ross Hammond began the second fight unarmed, how could Ross Hammond have cut Ms. Kish with that very same knife unless he had wrestled the knife from her? Kish herself unquely I.D.'s Hammond as the one who had wounded her with the knife. If Kish had brought the knife to the second fight, but passed it to a male friend who made the fatal wounds to Hammond, before Hammond had wrestled the knife from this unknown male, the Justice comments that Kish is still liable for Hammond's death just the same, because she was the “intervening woman” who’d stopped the first fight and had transported the knife. (It is for this reason that Nordheimer implied that Kish’s criminal responsibility began at the conclusion of the first fight, more superficially when she had left the first fight following Hammand with malicious intent.)

15) At the conclusion of the second fight Ross Hammond fled the scene with the knife by clinging to a taxi, leaving the knife at the church. Hammond reported to police that he took possession of the knife during the second fight, although the police differed on the gender of the person who they heard Hammond say he "ripped the knife from."

I believe the following to be a fair description and summary of Justice Nordheimer’s “case against Nicole Kish”.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby ScifiTom » Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:54 am

Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:I don't see that as a strong point TBH.

What would you have said if you weren't being honest? :tongue:

A "strong point" in which context? The context of what might be relevant to a hoped-for ministerial review to come? Or a strong point in trying to write out what is really true, as if one was writing a book?

Why isn't it a strong point to erode Nordheimer's claim that Kish had "pursued" Hammond with a knife, in his view the only knife at the scene? If Hammond had been forced from Fresh by escaping to the immediate-West, and Kish had ended up at the NE fight going another route, how is that pursuit?


To Bill & Clive

What, Who, Why, Where & How. Is this all going to end even I am seeing it now that it Bill vs Clive once again, of a huge battle. When is it going to end. Never, guys for once Nyki Kish crime wave was a huge mess and if you 2 knew my way. I will say it again and again over and over, so many times! I love it, Nooooooo it was not your way Bill or your way Clive. What really happen in oh Canada, and here is my point of view in the color of red!!!

Nyki Kish, was having a wonderful time with her boyfriend and they were going to a festitival Oh Canada musical & movies of why! Oh Canada movies were getting better work into American movies, and it was entertainment even yes the Canada style were better even the Japan & UK were better then the USA.
I am loving it, even they celebrate 150yrs of making a movie or musical style and what happen in that time zone, when Nyki Kish and her boyfriend came to the party of 140's annversary and she wanted to perform to sing and while they walked to hold hand, an unknown truder aka evil man came in and charge to attack to stab Nyki Kish & her boyfriend and it turn out to be a huge brawl of who vs who and all of sunddeley Nyki get stab and she surivior! But her boyfriend died and he was murder and the police came over and question her with no rights and bash her and after that they take her away until she recover with medical bills to be pay of no pain or suffer and it was all plan dumb police work, even if Donald J. Trump said: Hey let boycott Italy. Maybe we should had boycott Oh Canada. No wonder our Canada flag is being taken over the USA flag and now I can see it now: Oh Canada is going to be cover into the America flag. There going to kill the white stars and say: Oh Canada over the American stars. I know so and I prove this message. So go ahead Clive & Bill disagree with me or agree with me!!!


This is my answer and it where I stand of seeing it and that is that and I prove this message that a brawl came into bad police work style of Oh Canada style and why not now celebrate the 150yrs over movie!!!

http://www.toronto.com/things-to-do/wha ... n-toronto/
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5: Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Nyki Kish Case Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:16 pm

ScifiTom wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:I don't see that as a strong point TBH.

What would you have said if you weren't being honest? :tongue:

A "strong point" in which context? The context of what might be relevant to a hoped-for ministerial review to come? Or a strong point in trying to write out what is really true, as if one was writing a book?

Why isn't it a strong point to erode Nordheimer's claim that Kish had "pursued" Hammond with a knife, in his view the only knife at the scene? If Hammond had been forced from Fresh by escaping to the immediate-West, and Kish had ended up at the NE fight going another route, how is that pursuit?


To Bill & Clive

What, Who, Why, Where & How. Is this all going to end even I am seeing it now that it Bill vs Clive once again, of a huge battle. When is it going to end. Never, guys for once Nyki Kish crime wave was a huge mess and if you 2 knew my way. I will say it again and again over and over, so many times! I love it, Nooooooo it was not your way Bill or your way Clive. What really happen in oh Canada, and here is my point of view in the color of red!!!

Nyki Kish, was having a wonderful time with her boyfriend and they were going to a festitival Oh Canada musical & movies of why! Oh Canada movies were getting better work into American movies, and it was entertainment even yes the Canada style were better even the Japan & UK were better then the USA.
I am loving it, even they celebrate 150yrs of making a movie or musical style and what happen in that time zone, when Nyki Kish and her boyfriend came to the party of 140's annversary and she wanted to perform to sing and while they walked to hold hand, an unknown truder aka evil man came in and charge to attack to stab Nyki Kish & her boyfriend and it turn out to be a huge brawl of who vs who and all of sunddeley Nyki get stab and she surivior! But her boyfriend died and he was murder and the police came over and question her with no rights and bash her and after that they take her away until she recover with medical bills to be pay of no pain or suffer and it was all plan dumb police work, even if Donald J. Trump said: Hey let boycott Italy. Maybe we should had boycott Oh Canada. No wonder our Canada flag is being taken over the USA flag and now I can see it now: Oh Canada is going to be cover into the America flag. There going to kill the white stars and say: Oh Canada over the American stars. I know so and I prove this message. So go ahead Clive & Bill disagree with me or agree with me!!!


This is my answer and it where I stand of seeing it and that is that and I prove this message that a brawl came into bad police work style of Oh Canada style and why not now celebrate the 150yrs over movie!!!

http://www.toronto.com/things-to-do/wha ... n-toronto/

One of the shameful things about this wrongful (or most certainly unsafe) conviction is this - because it was labelled the "Panhandler Killing", that fed into a, then, fear in Toronto about street-kids in general. Fear of panhandlers, squeagy-kids, or anyone with long hair and an attitude.

Justice Nordheimer, IMO, succumbed to that fear in rendering what is now a judicial truth, but anything but the truth. Kish was not panhandling, despite her being the only one convicted. The other mystery is why the other three charged had everything dropped with Kish left holding the judicial bag.

But be that as it may - not much of a reason to celebrate Canada's 150th.

Woe Canada.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Previous

Return to Nyki Kish Case

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest