Air India Suspects Found Not Guilty 2005/2022 Update

[Colin Parkinson]

A lot of people have a motive in this case.

 

[RangerRay]

Indian hit squad? Local Hindus or Muslims seeking retribution 30 years later? Random coincidental attack? Targeted but completely unrelated to Air India?

 

[OldSolduer]

A lot of people have a motive in this case.

It makes my mind speculate - even though I shouldn't.

One of the relatives of the victims of Air India got him OR the Indian version of 007 got him OR he was involved in other shady dealings unrelated to Air India. But that is all sheer speculation.

We had a case here not long ago where a man was targeted - WPS even admitted it. He was Syrian IIRC and a domestic abuser and rapist.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Indian hit squad? Local Hindus or Muslims seeking retribution 30 years later? Random coincidental attack? Targeted but completely unrelated to Air India?

Indians unlikely. A few years ago PM Modi allowed him to return to India. And according to the todays National Post article Malik had recently penned a letter praising PM Modi for his attempts to address Sikh grievances. Which, as the article states may have peeved off some of the more extremists Sikh followers to consider he had betrayed the cause and decided he had to go.

 

[ModlrMike]

Colour me unsurprised.

 

[CBH99]

One has to wonder if the balance between procedure and seeing justice served is a bit off or not. Are we still being served by a system which, although it follows principles of due process, allows the guilty to walk free in the face of evidence that points to their culpability?

Rather than start a new thread, or quote & post this in another thread, I’ll just post here.

Realizing the quote above is from 2005, I think we are all a bit more jaded & cynical in our views of the legal system now.


The final question of this post is important.

Are we being served by a system in which people who are clearly guilty of serious criminal acts are allowed to walk free, despite their culpability?

Or someone like Tamara Lich is remanded in jail, despite her…

a) being innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

b) her actions did not directly endanger others, nor were they violent in nature


I don’t know what the solution is. But this isn’t how the system is supposed to work.

Infanteer,
If the public only knew.........no I shouldn't say that, most Canadians only seem to care when the crime had something to do with themselves.
If there is one thing my job has shown me its that the whole Judical system in Canada is broken.......

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Rather than start a new thread, or quote & post this in another thread, I’ll just post here.

Realizing the quote above is from 2005, I think we are all a bit more jaded & cynical in our views of the legal system now.


The final question of this post is important.

Are we being served by a system in which people who are clearly guilty of serious criminal acts are allowed to walk free, despite their culpability?

Or someone like Tamara Lich is remanded in jail, despite her…

a) being innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

b) her actions did not directly endanger others, nor were they violent in nature


I don’t know what the solution is. But this isn’t how the system is supposed to work.

Funny you should mention Lich, a relative of mine out in BC posted this image on Facebook. No wonder people have a distrust in the Justice system.

 

[brihard]

Rather than start a new thread, or quote & post this in another thread, I’ll just post here.

Realizing the quote above is from 2005, I think we are all a bit more jaded & cynical in our views of the legal system now.


The final question of this post is important.

Are we being served by a system in which people who are clearly guilty of serious criminal acts are allowed to walk free, despite their culpability?

Or someone like Tamara Lich is remanded in jail, despite her…

a) being innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

b) her actions did not directly endanger others, nor were they violent in nature


I don’t know what the solution is. But this isn’t how the system is supposed to work.

That’s not accurate though. She was released on a bail plan with a surety. Even that bail plan and surety couldn’t prevent her from breaching bail. She had the opportunity to present a new and improved bail plan that would satisfy the Criminal Code requirements, but she failed to, and also significant shortcomings in her surety’s knowledge of the situation were revealed.

There are absolutely a lot of people getting bail that shouldn’t be. But she got the most procedurally rigorous opportunity to prove her suitability for release that anyone could hope for; she had the best possible chance to get bail, and she failed to demonstrate that she could offer a more convincing plan than what she had before. That’s on her.

I’ll point out that some of her equally-involved co-accused, such as Chris Barber or BJ Dichter, had little difficulty getting bail (like her the first time), and have had no trouble staying free on bail. They’ve been canny enough to realize belatedly that yes, the rules apply to them too.

Obviously on the other end of the spectrum you get Pat King, who remains in custody (though we’ll find out Monday if that stays the case). But he’s both monumentally stupid, and incapable of just shutting the frig up for thirty seconds and listening to… maybe a third to a half of the advice he would get from a competent lawyer.

But yeah, Lich’s case is an example of the judicial interim release system working the way it’s supposed to, when proper resources and time are given to a particular case. She of course had the advantage of excellent criminal counsel that most criminal accused don’t get.

 

[Infanteer]

I'm impressed that you dredged that up from 17 years ago.

 

[brihard]

I'm impressed that you dredged that up from 17 years ago.

Dude I’ve been holding back so hard on making a “necropost” reply since the guy got shot.

 

[GK .Dundas]

That’s not accurate though. She was released on a bail plan with a surety. Even that bail plan and surety couldn’t prevent her from breaching bail. She had the opportunity to present a new and improved bail plan that would satisfy the Criminal Code requirements, but she failed to, and also significant shortcomings in her surety’s knowledge of the situation were revealed.

There are absolutely a lot of people getting bail that shouldn’t be. But she got the most procedurally rigorous opportunity to prove her suitability for release that anyone could hope for; she had the best possible chance to get bail, and she failed to demonstrate that she could offer a more convincing plan than what she had before. That’s on her.

I’ll point out that some of her equally-involved co-accused, such as Chris Barber or BJ Dichter, had little difficulty getting bail (like her the first time), and have had no trouble staying free on bail. They’ve been canny enough to realize belatedly that yes, the rules apply to them too.

Obviously on the other end of the spectrum you get Pat King, who remains in custody (though we’ll find out Monday if that stays the case). But he’s both monumentally stupid, and incapable of just shutting the frig up for thirty seconds and listening to… maybe a third to a half of the advice he would get from a competent lawyer.

But yeah, Lich’s case is an example of the judicial interim release system working the way it’s supposed to, when proper resources and time are given to a particular case. She of course had the advantage of excellent criminal counsel that most criminal accused don’t get.
[/QUOTE}
I was actually amazed it took as long as it did for her end up back in jail after basically telling the judge to F**k himself and on National tv.
Yes I know her lawyer told it would be Ok ....
Just remember if your lawyer just happens to be incorrect. He's not going to be sharing your cell.

 

[brihard]

I was actually amazed it took as long as it did for her end up back in jail after basically telling the judge to F**k himself and on National tv.
Yes I know her lawyer told it would be Ok ....
Just remember if your lawyer just happens to be incorrect. He's not going to be sharing your cell.

I’m not aware that she was actually given such a ‘go ahead’ by her lawyer? The bail hearing was covered by reporters; none reported her lawyer as having testified to that.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Or just have open custody for minor sh!t.

 

[Ostrozac]

Indian hit squad? Local Hindus or Muslims seeking retribution 30 years later? Random coincidental attack? Targeted but completely unrelated to Air India?

329 families with motives. Plus whatever else he was up to. He was still living openly in the community, and it seems that he felt safe there. Personally, if I had been publicly declared as a major suspect in the biggest terrorist attack in a country’s history — I’d be keeping a much lower profile, regardless of the verdict of the courts.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

That’s not accurate though. She was released on a bail plan with a surety. Even that bail plan and surety couldn’t prevent her from breaching bail. She had the opportunity to present a new and improved bail plan that would satisfy the Criminal Code requirements, but she failed to, and also significant shortcomings in her surety’s knowledge of the situation were revealed.

There are absolutely a lot of people getting bail that shouldn’t be. But she got the most procedurally rigorous opportunity to prove her suitability for release that anyone could hope for; she had the best possible chance to get bail, and she failed to demonstrate that she could offer a more convincing plan than what she had before. That’s on her.

I’ll point out that some of her equally-involved co-accused, such as Chris Barber or BJ Dichter, had little difficulty getting bail (like her the first time), and have had no trouble staying free on bail. They’ve been canny enough to realize belatedly that yes, the rules apply to them too.

Obviously on the other end of the spectrum you get Pat King, who remains in custody (though we’ll find out Monday if that stays the case). But he’s both monumentally stupid, and incapable of just shutting the frig up for thirty seconds and listening to… maybe a third to a half of the advice he would get from a competent lawyer.

But yeah, Lich’s case is an example of the judicial interim release system working the way it’s supposed to, when proper resources and time are given to a particular case. She of course had the advantage of excellent criminal counsel that most criminal accused don’t get.

The problem is that the average Joe/Jane Canadian doesn't have your insight into the Canadian justice system and all its nuances. They look at cases where criminals get off easy (Walker is probably a bad example - my bad) and they look at Lich's cases and what is her infraction? She attended a conference in Ottawa to accept an award and one of the other "Freedom Convoy" organizers who she is was supposed to stay away from was also in attendance.

Was that a violation of her bail? Yes! But, to a lot of Canadians Lich is getting the crappy end of the stick for what they think is a minor infraction, while criminals are walking free.

 

[dapaterson]

Taking a leading part in a demonstration with a published manifesto calling for the overthrow of the government is not a minor act.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Taking a leading part in a demonstration with a published manifesto calling for the overthrow of the government is not a minor act.

My above post was in regards to Lich having her bail revoked because she attended a conference to accept a award and how many Canadians see instances of other criminals with far worse crimes under their belt walking free.

As for Lich and her co-conspirators being charged for their parts in organizing of the blockade of downtown Ottawa I totally agree with.

 

[brihard]

My above post was in regards to Lich having her bail revoked because she attended a conference to accept a award and how many Canadians see instances of other criminals with far worse crimes under their belt walking free.

As for Lich and her co-conspirators being charged for their parts in organizing of the blockade of downtown Ottawa I totally agree with.

That’s not why her bail was revoked.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

That’s not why her bail was revoked.

Okay, that was my understanding for the bail being revoked. Obviously, my info was bad and I apologize for the thread hi-jack.

 

[CBH99]

Taking a leading part in a demonstration with a published manifesto calling for the overthrow of the government is not a minor act.

Pffftttt…tomatoes tomatoes…