Okay, so I got the opener this week and to celebrate
I'm gonna do a double header for an opener. First
I'm gonna do an update on the James... I almost
combined the names Jeb's telescope, James Webb
telescope, because we have sort of been following
it, kind of. We didn't update on it. I can't
remember why. We because we mentioned did at
some point briefly, but then we updated it that
it left, but it hadn't actually left. So we updated
and had to record the audio later on after we
recorded that it safely made it to where it needed
to. So I thought that I'd start out with an update
on the brief updates that we've done in good
faith. This one is not in good faith. This one's
all fact. It is fashionably late. We tried to
jump the gun on the last update, and this one's
going to come in a little bit late. That's OK.
On average, we're on time now. Yeah. In True
Journey to the Fringe fashion, we keep some sort
of organization to the podcast. So James Webb
Telescope finally reached its final destination,
which was 30 days after its launch, which was
around Christmas time. Did not put the exact
date in True Journey to the Fringe fashion. Maybe
that's just Chelsea fashion. The final resting
place being the El - Lagrange point? Am I saying
it right? Lagrange point? Which is four times
further away than the moon. L2 is a point that
will help keep its position stable relative to
Earth and the Sun. Being in that spot protects
it from the big swings in temperature and allows
the James Webb Telescope. I don't get, they abbreviate
it by saying JWST, but what is the S? Space Telescope,
I believe. James Webb Space Telescope? Yeah.
Oh, okay. So James Webb's Space Telescope, I
presume, being in the spot protects it from big
swings in temperature and allows the James Webb
Space Telescope's giant sun shield to block heat
coming from the sun. The telescope must maintain
constant super cold temperatures, which is minus
370 degrees Fahrenheit for the instruments to
function properly. Yeah, it's crazy. It's near
like absolute zero. I don't even know how they
would know the temperature that it needs to be
at or even test that here. Well, we can read
near absolute zero in lab settings on earth is
that absolute zero no we can't reach absolute
zero like it's impossible i thought it was just
zero degrees celsius oh okay when you're thinking
of absolute zero you talk about kelvin and zero
degrees kelvin is cold it's the coldest anything
can possibly be okay wow that's cool and i thought
i was cold all the time okay So, it's arrived
now and unfolded. Yes, it had to be unfolded.
It was too large, so it had to be launched into
space, folded up into a rocket. I had no idea
it was so gigantic. It's tennis court sized.
You would think it would be little, but it's
not. So it was launched up in the rocket and
had to be unfolded remotely by commands from
Earth. And the process took about two weeks to
get it unfolded, which apparently was pretty
intense. Now that it's unfolded and there, it
now begins the process of aligning the mirrors,
instrument activation, commissioning, adjusted
the infrared telescopes mirror segments and testing
out its instruments. And then she's ready to
rock in about five months. It's a he, Chelsea.
It's a he? I thought they were all she's. Yeah,
James Webb Space Telescope, but this one's James.
Okay, he. James could be a boy, I mean a girl.
I caught myself it as a boy. Okay, and it's going
to be capturing the very first stars in the universe
made possible by the infrared sensitivity the
telescope is equipped with, as well as also studying
the atmospheres of planets orbiting stars outside
our solar system to see if they're habitable
or inhabited. Can I just add at this point it's
theoretically the first stars in the universe
because that's based on our science that we can
only make observations on from our observable
portion of the universe and also it does not
take into account that anything could have happened
prior to the Big Bang. It doesn't take into account
of that? No, there could have been stars before
the Big Bang. Couldn't they see it with this
telescope? no you can never see before the big
bang why what if it never happened well theoretically
it did and it's very hard to see past well if
there was nothing i guess you couldn't see that
but maybe there were stars anyhow so that's pretty
cool apparently this technology has never been
had by any telescope before and you can't they
can technically see the beginnings of the solar
system with this infrared camera the beginning
of the solar system or beginning of the universe
oh yeah both okay either one interchangeable
Well, I just don't see how you can see because
basically what they're saying is we can see the
beginning of the universe because we can see
things that are 14 billion light years away.
So that light would be literally coming off of
just after the Big Bang. See, I don't get that,
though. Like, wouldn't that light like pass us
at some point? No, it's still working to pass
us because it left that star as soon as it was
created. And it is 14 billion light years away
from us. And a light year is how far light can
travel in a year. we know how long away the first
star is generally we know when the big bang happened
so likely what stars would have been created
and the first times they would have shown up
so we're looking for light that would be coming
from things that were created at that time okay
we're getting really smart that like we say when
you look up at the sky and you can say like that
light was created when dinosaurs were on the
earth because it's 67 million light years away
yeah i get that but like at one point like it's
closer like it's no longer when the dinosaurs
were there And then there's that whole other
side of it of there's only so much of the universe
we'll ever be able to see because the universe
is expanding in all directions faster than the
speed of light. So there's portions of the universe
that are past the point that light could travel
to us from that time. This is all very hard to
wrap my mind around. but yeah it's very cool
actually when we explain it simply to my simple
mind so it's really cool that they're going to
be able to capture this there's a lot of scientists
that are very excited about this like camera
that's going to capture things that they've never
been able to capture before the infrared camera
and the spectrograph as well break down light
together in its full spectrum of colors like
a rainbow to look for signs of water on planets
carbon dioxide and methane which are all common
on earth and we think may be signs of life -friendly
planets elsewhere as i think we've talked about
on other episodes yeah that would have been the
Fermi paradox episode the Fermi paradox yes and
we basically think that life will survive only
in the circumstances that we survive on earth
we only have one case study and it's us yeah
so basically we're going to look for the things
that we know can at least work in creating life
i wonder if it works in all possibilities are
a combination it must we don't know for sure
though no but well again it was in the fermi
paradox episode there's the idea of the rare
earth and it's just like there are so many factors
that you need to get life yeah like that it could
have only popped up once highly unlikely anyhow
to finish this off like best part i thought about
this is there's already an image they took as
it's calibrating stages and it also took a selfie
of itself i'm gonna post oh yeah and how much
they spent on that selfie it's pretty shitty
actually yeah So I'm gonna post this to our social
medias and the first image is really blurry.
It's like pretty cool, but it's like super blurry.
You're like, you can tell it's blurry. And it's
like, wow, so many millions of dollars. Billions.
Yeah, many millions into the billions. Yeah,
I guess you're technically right. And it's like
saying laundry done in seconds. Technically,
no matter how long it takes, it's still in seconds.
Yeah, it might be like thousands of seconds,
but. Yeah, so they're blurry pictures because
it's not quite set up yet. It is a nice blurry
selfie of the JWST, whatever the S means. It's
space telescope. It's the James Webb Space Telescope.
Why do we have to like specify space telescope?
Because there's a distinct difference between
a terrestrial telescope and a space telescope.
Okay. And the huge difference is that they do
not need to account for atmospheric changes to
the viewing. Does that make sense? I guess so.
And because when I say James Webb telescope,
I don't say James Webb Space Telescope. Really?
I feel that it feels more natural with the space
in there. OK, I will amend all of it moving forward.
Not now. OK, so part two of my opener. It's not
as epic as Mk 97. But next is an article I stumbled
upon a little bit ago and just never had the
chance to use until now. I love a good missing
person story, especially when it comes to mysterious
circumstances. And I mean, that is i mean that
in the best way possible i just am fascinated
by we do not wish for them to happen but when
they do man we just i do not wish for the anyone
to go missing or be it to be under mysterious
circumstances but Do I like a good missing person
story? So there are a large number of missing
person cases which fall into this mysterious
category. We've mentioned it a couple of times
in passing. This is an opener, so I'm not going
to be getting into what makes these disappearances
mysterious and whatnot, because you could easily
be one, two or three episodes. And for right
now, I'll just refer you to David Palladis as
we've referenced him in the past. And with that
being said, I did stumble upon on a weird article.
I love the fact that we have mentioned David
Politis at least five times now and just like
refuse to do an episode. No, it's a lot to undertake.
We can allude to it in the future. We will do
one in the future. It's just that one's going
to be a huge undertaking. I think there's a few
episodes that we want to do that are just going
to be such a huge undertaking that is going to
take us a while to research and to get it to
an episode we'd be happy with. Yeah, that's the
hard part. When you know enough about it, you're
worried about putting anything out there that's
not perfect. Yeah, this one I kind of had that
feeling on this one, but I think I did a good
enough job. And that's what we Good enough. Okay,
so this article's from 2019. So it is a few years
ago now. It's dated. It's three years ago, but
still worth a mention. It's pretty cool. Topical
news chat. Yeah. Like three years old. Yeah.
Well, you'll see when I say it. But and why not?
The setup is literally what we see in most of
these mysterious missing people cases and with
David Polatus. So this is Casey Hathaway, who
is three years old and was playing with another
with other children in his grandmother's yard
when he completely vanished in Earnall, North
Carolina. gone. The search had setbacks due to
bad weather once he went missing including heavy
rain and wind. The terrain was treacherous and
the areas they needed to search were flooded
and filled with sinkholes. The professionally
trained searchers were having trouble navigating
safely. Two days later they found Casey 40 to
50 yards deep into the woods from his grandmother's
yard where he was playing. He was soaking wet,
cold and tangled in thorn bushes calling for
his mother. The searchers had to wade through
nearly waist -deep water to get to him. And what
happened to Casey you ask? Well Casey recounted
to his family that he was taken care of by a
bear for two days and the authorities shared
that there is no sign of abduction and that's
what Casey had stuck to in a story when he left.
Would a bear abduction show the same signs that
police would be looking for? I don't know that
they would fully qualify Probably yes. What's
the alert that they give when children are abducted?
Amber. Amber alert, okay. It would be a brown
alert for a bear. Well, it might still be an
amber alert, but you'd have to be on the lookout
for a bear. Editor's note, the correct term is
an amber alert. Yeah. I don't really like this
bear in that when he was done with this child,
he just chucked it into a rose bush. Yeah, to
be found like in an area that nobody could really
get to easily. But yeah, that's what happened
to Casey. I just I stumbled upon a news article
quite a while ago saying that this kid went missing
under mysterious circumstances. And he said that
he was taken care of by a bear. And I've just
always wanted to talk about it. And now I've
talked about it. So. Oh, good. And that's it.
That's the opener. Any closing opener thoughts?
No, because I need to get into this episode.
I got 10 pages of notes to go over. Oh my gosh.
OK. So let's get going. OK, quick. From the unexplained
to the mundane, come join us on a journey to
the fringe. Hello and welcome. 2. Journey to
the Fringe For liability purposes, I am now going
to inform you all that you are not legally required
to listen to this episode. It's more of a moral
obligation. We are your now liability -absolved
hosts. Taylor and Chelsea. And today we are going
to be airing some of the laundry of those horse
boys once again. We have touched on the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police in the past when we talked
about Gabriel Wartman's rampage and the weird
things that have popped up in there. And today
we're going to talk about one of the RCMP's lesser
known, but still dangerous practices that they
use when they're doing investigations into crimes.
And that is the Mr. Biggin. investigation. Now
this is one that generally the RCMP really tries
to downplay. They don't put a lot of news out
with regards to it. I think I have alluded to
this before, but I finally put the time in and
we're going to talk about what this investigation
is, cases that have come from it, and really
where we stand now with them in society. Okay,
I'm excited. And we did allude to the Mr. Big
episode in our Gabriel Wortmann case episode,
I think. So ask questions as we go, because this
will likely be confusing and there may be legal
terms used that you won't know what they are.
So if you don't know, just ask. OK, I'll keep
us all on track, everybody. We're in this together.
So without further ado, we're going to start
this right off with what is a Mr. Big Case? And
that is a police investigation that usually places
a suspect, typically someone socially isolated
and financially disadvantaged under extended
surveillance, typically for weeks. Why the RCMP
have targeted these people is because they believe
that they have committed a crime that they are
investigating. Having learned about the suspect's
personalities and habits, the RCMP develop an
interactive scenario. Pretending to encounter
the suspect by happenstance, an undercover operative
solicits a small favour from the suspect. Exploiting
the acquaintance ship, the operative soon offers
entertainment, gifts, companionship, meals, and
eventually employment. The undercover operative
pays the suspect appreciable monies for petty
tasks such as counting cash or making deliveries
associated with fictitious criminal activities.
As these tasks grow in importance and frequency,
the suspect is treated as an up -and -comer in
a criminal organization. And this criminal organization
is completely fabricated by the RCMP and is completely
made up by undercover operatives working for
the RCMP. When many as 50 operatives may be involved,
crafting a steady escalation and association,
influence and pressure leading up to the creation
of an atmosphere in which it is deemed appropriate
to encourage the target to confess. Okay, I feel
like I'm following it properly, but I'm just
not connecting the dots here. Okay, eventually
the suspect is introduced to a character that
fictitiously or at least behind the scenes is
known as Mr. Big. He's the fictitious crime organization
kingpin and is actually a skilled police interrogator,
employing enticement and threats. Mr. Big tells
the suspect of receiving from the police incriminating
information about the suspect, whose impending
arrest threatens the gang, and which is why Mr.
Big must know the unsolved crime's details. Mr.
Big may offer to clean up the situation by framing
someone else, perhaps a terminally ill Confederate
willing to take the fall for the gang, or Mr.
Big might claim that a mole within the police
department can tamper with incriminating evidence.
Sometimes the confession is demanded to show
good faith, loyalty, or trustworthiness, or serve
as insurance to Mr. Big. And the final meeting
is usually recorded. Once the police either obtain
a confession or become convinced of the suspect's
innocence, the lavish left -style and elaborate
underworld evaporate. And where a confession
has been obtained, the suspect is arrested. The
Mr. Big technique is often a last resort in cold
cases. or where the police's strong suspicion
is paired with insufficient evidence, the Mr.
Big technique has been used to secure convictions
in hundreds of cases and has been highly effective
in obtaining confessions from guilty suspects.
Still, this technique also gives some innocent
suspects compelling motivation to remain in criminal
organization to maintain the new lifestyle and
new friends. Falsely confessing to Mr. Big then
seems like an acceptable risk. Basically, they're
just elaborately setting up a drug cartel or
something. Not necessarily drug cartel. It can
be anything. They target the person that they
take first off is going to be somebody who they
believe is susceptible to this type of carousing.
Seems like a lot of effort. It's a ton of effort
and we're going to get into that. And they tailor
the criminal activity to the person that they're
actually going after. Like if somebody's selling
illegal hubcaps. Like Mr. Big is like the kingpin
in this like upper. If somebody's a mechanic,
then they might say like, hey, we're going to
hire you to take these hubcaps off these cars.
Probably a terrible example. Sorry for our mechanics
out there in the world. And these are stolen
cars. So they bring them and they make them take
these hubcaps off these cars and they pay them
the entire time to do it quite well. And then
they ship them around Canada to do it in their
little warehouses. That's so crazy. That's like
such an elaborate scheme. OK, I hope it's worth
whatever they're setting these guys up for. Like,
are they mob bosses? We're going to see who these
people are as we go. Now, this is a made in Canada
technique, too. It has been exported to some
places, but this is pretty much everybody knows
it as the Canadian Mr. Big investigation technique.
OK, so it didn't come from like Mongolia or like
Afghanistan or something? No. Okay. The first
case we're going to talk about is a man by the
name of Rose. It went through to the Supreme
Court of Canada, known as R .V. Rose. I didn't
write down the citation for it, but you can find
R .V. Rose SCC. That's fine. I'm sure we already
know it's common knowledge. Yeah. In October
of 1983, Andrea Sherp and Byrne Gorick were murdered
in Chetwind. In 1991, Andy Rose was convicted
of these killings, relying almost exclusively
on testimony from a lady who claimed she saw
him the night of the murder, quote, drunk and
covered in blood, claiming to have killed two
people, unquote. Sentenced to a minimum of 15
years in prison, the conviction was overturned
on a technicality in 1992. But Rose remained
in prison when a new trial had been immediately
ordered. In 1994, Rose was again sentenced to
a minimum of 15 years in prison, again almost
exclusively on the testimony of the lady who
claimed to see him in Chetwind, and his next
appeal was denied in 1996. Rose was released
on bail in 1997 when his second conviction was
overturned on a technicality. Mounting evidence
against a possible third conviction, including
the witness against Rose being off on her timing
by at least two weeks, and a man in California
committing suicide after confessing to his wife
with numerous consistent details to murdering
two people near Chetwind in October of 1993,
complicated the development for the Crown's attorney's
refiling. In January of 1999, an undercover operative
for the RCMP contacted Rose to gain his trust
in Ho - In the next eight months, the investigators
befriended Rose. Rose was seduced into illegal
activities for which he got about $5 ,900 cash.
Pause for a second. What was their, like, Mr.
Big scenario crime ring that they, like, cooped
him in for? Like, is it, like, murdering more
people or what did they think would appeal to
him? I don't know in this case. OK. I do know
in quite a few of the next ones, but this one
was a mystery for me because they didn't really
talk about the investigation itself, the Mr.
Big program. They just talk about. the outcome
of it okay i was just curious because like what
do you do if it's just like not just murder but
like they're not operating anything illegally
they just like murdered somebody what straight
up it is they say i need to deliver this box
it's too grand for you to drive it across town
and they literally put fake drugs in it so that
you feel like if you opened it there's drugs
in it and you know you're doing something illegal
but they're not really drugs what the hell okay
first of all if somebody said take this well
i don't know, I feel like for $2 ,000 I do it.
And that's just so you know, they set it up so
you become friends with the undercover officer
prior to him confronting you with this. Yeah,
I would do it. So again, he got paid. During
this time, $5 ,900, which would be equivalent
today to about $8 ,720. Yeah, I'd do it too.
In 2022 dollars, that's about $50 ,000. Wow.
Just kidding. Inflation's a bitch. I was just
going to say, like, holy shit. After eight months,
the gang told him that they could gather information
about his upcoming case and change the evidence
for him so he would not have to go back to prison
or even to court. However, the support would
only be granted if he became a recognized member
of the gang, and it would be important to impress
Mr. Big. At the meeting with Mr. Big, in July
of 1999, Rose repeatedly reaffirmed his innocence.
Then Mr. Big made it clear to him that he wanted
to hear a confession, and Rose, known for his
alcohol abuse, should consider this with a beer.
After a few beers, Rose confessed, and based
on his confession, the Crown filed for a third
trial. What? This is insanity. OK. The third
trial collapsed in 2001 and proceedings against
Rose were stayed with the ability for the Crown
to refail charges to a court. Rose's innocence
was proven due to lack of DNA evidence and he
was acquitted. As it should have gone, I feel
like I'm no lawyer. Yeah. I know nothing about.
Super sketchy considering somebody committed
suicide immediately after saying basically that
he did kill these people. What the fuck? And
another one from almost the exact same timeline.
In 1995, the body of William Bedford, a cocaine
dealer, was found duct -taped to a tree in Hope,
BC. He had been shot in the head. Three years
later, undercover police set up a fake criminal
organization and gave Mr. Simmons, then a homeless
and drug addict individual, $1 million in cash
as a demonstration of the enterprise's seriousness,
his affidavit says. They brought him to the supposed
crime boss, Mr. Big, to supply details with the
killing of Mr. Bedford as a condition of becoming
a member. In 2000, a jury found Mr. Simmons guilty
of first degree murder, which carries a mandatory
sentence of life in prison with no chance of
parole for 25 years. In 2002, the B .C. Court
of Appeal upheld the conviction and the Supreme
Court refused a year later to hear his appeal
at no time did Mr. Simmons raise issues of being
illegally manipulated by the police tactics because
his lawyers say there was no legal basis at the
time for doing so. If that were me, all of a
sudden, like, I am being paid all this money
and someone's like, if you want to continue to
be paid this money and become a member of our
club, but I need this confession from you, I'd
probably be like, why? I feel like I don't want
to confess to anybody. We will get into that
part because that's a big portion of this entire
story. But I just want to focus on that last
part, where there was no legal basis for overturning
this, and this is what's called the pre -heart
days of Mr. Big. Despite the use of violence,
derogatory language, and simulated crime by police
agents in these Mr. Big operations, the confessions
obtained still managed to slip through the cracks
of an exclusionary rule in existence at the time.
none of the following exclusionary rules applied.
The common law, confession rule, because the
suspect did not know that he was talking to a
person in authority. Section seven of the charter,
because the suspect was not in police detention.
And hearsay, because it fell under the party
admission exception, which is hearsay is okay
if the person is not acting in their own interest,
and in fact works against their best interests.
Or the law of entrapment, because the suspect
was not charged with an offense committed during
his invo - with the fictitious organization.
It was not a product of chance that Mr. Big Operations
somehow managed to circumvent the letter of all
these laws, rather it was by design. It would
have to. When you're submitting Mr. Big evidence
to the court, you're not submitting it as a confession,
you're submitting it as this guy told me while
we were sitting over a beer that he committed
these murders. That's against his best interest
to be saying that, so it's okay to admit that
as hearsay. Despite the fact that everybody involved
is a police officer. Yeah. And they're setting
them up, essentially. Yeah. A lot of things wrong
with it. That brings us into the next case of
Hart, H -A -R -T. If you're looking for it's
RV Hart. It's very famous. Type it into Canley
C -A -N -L -I -I dot org Hart H -A -R -T S -C
-C. And it's gonna be a really sad story, so
just brace yourselves for this part, okay? Hart's
twin daughters drowned on August 4th of 2002.
Both of them? Both of them. Hart claimed that
he had taken the girls, Krista and Karen, to
Little Harbor where there was a small wharf.
Krista fell off the wharf and Hart, who could
not swim, panicked and left to go get help, leaving
the other child. In a later interview, Hart claimed
that he had a small seizure at the time that
Krista fell into the water. Karen ostensibly
fell in the water during Hart's absence, and
he drove home and returned with his wife. Krista
was found alive but died at the hospital, and
Karen was pronounced dead at the scene. The Mr.
Big operation began in 2002. Preliminary surveillance
revealed that Hart was socially isolated, had
few friends, and went everywhere with his wife.
He was also on social insurance with only a grade
4 education and had a history of seizures which
became more frequent after a car crash in 1998.
The first contact took place when he was paid
for assisting in finding an operative's sister.
He was then asked to make some truck deliveries
for which he was well paid. A friendship with
his operative developed. He began dealing in
fake credit cards, forged passports, and counterfeit
casino chips. Hart was made to believe that the
gang was nationwide with branches in Vancouver,
Montreal, and Halifax. As time went on, the seriousness
of the illegal activities increased along with
the lucritiveness of the payoffs. He and his
wife were treated to luxurious trips around the
country, extravagant shopping sprees, and expensive
dinners. Hart aspired to join the gang as a full
-time member. Well yeah, you'd have to be dumb
to not want to. In total, Hart participated in
63 what they call scenarios with the undercover
officers and was paid more than $15 ,000 for
the work that he did for the organization. As
part of that work, Hart was also sent on several
trips across Canada, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa,
Toronto, and Vancouver, and Hart often stayed
in hotels and occasionally dined in expensive
restaurants and during these trips, all at the
fictitious organization's expense. Over time,
the undercover officers became Hart's best friends
and Hart came to view them as his brothers. According
to one of the undercover officers, during this
time frame, Hart made a bold statement which
he confessed to having drowned his daughters.
The operation culminated with a meeting akin
to a job interview between Hart and Mr. Big,
the man purportedly at the helm of the criminal
organization. During their meeting, Mr. Big interrogated
Hart about the death of his daughter, seeking
a confession from him. After initially denying
responsibility, Hart confessed to drowning his
daughters. Two days later, Hart went to the scene
of the drowning with an undercover officer and
explained how he had pushed his daughter into
the water. He was arrested shortly after. At
trial, Hart's confessions were admitted into
evidence. The trial judge denied Hart's request
for permission to testify with the public excluded
from the courtroom. The majority of the Court
of Appeal allowed Hart's appeal and ordered a
new trial. The Court of Appeal unanimously held
that the trial judge erred in refusing to allow
Hart to testify outside of the presence of the
public, and a majority of the court also concluded
that Mr. Big Operations had breached Hart's right
to silence under Section 7 of the Charter. Which
again, is if you're with police you don't have
to talk to them. The majority excluded two of
Hart's confessions, the one to Mr. Big and the
one to the undercover officer at the scene of
the drowning, however the majority concluded
that Hart's bald confession was admissible and
ordered a new trial. This is where the actual
wording of the case comes down from the Supreme
Court. Mr. Big confessions are invariably accompanied
by evidence that shows the accused willingly
participated in simulated crime and was eager
to join a criminal organization. This evidence
sullies the accused's character, and in doing
so carries with it the risk of prejudice. Experiencing
candidate elsewhere teaches that wrongful convictions
are often traceable to evidence that is either
unreliable or prejudicial. When the two combine,
they make for a potent mix. and the risk of wrongful
conviction increases accordingly. Wrongful convictions
are a blight on our system. We must take reasonable
steps to prevent them from ever occurring. Mr.
Big Operations also run the risk of becoming
abusive. Undercover officers provide their target
with inducements including cash rewards to encourage
them to confess. They also cultivate an aura
of violence by showing that those who betray
the criminal organization are met with violence.
There is a risk these operations may become coercive.
Thought must be given to the kind of police tactics
we as a society are prepared to condone in the
pursuit of truth. Under existing law, Mr. Big
Confessions are routinely admitted under the
party admissions exception to the hearsay rule.
Attempts to extend existing legal protections
to Mr. Big Operations have failed. This court
has held that Mr. Big Operations do not engage
the right to silence because the accused is not
detained by the police at the time he or she
confesses. And the confession rule, which requires
the Crown to prove an accused's statement to
a person in authority is voluntary, is inoperative
because the accused does not know that Mr. Big
is a police officer when he confesses. In sum,
The law as it stands provides insufficient protection
to accused persons who confess during Mr. Big
Operations. A two -pronged response is needed
to address the concerns with reliability, prejudice,
and police misconduct raised by these operations.
Confessions arising from Mr. Big Operations would
henceforth be considered presumptively inadmissible
subject to a two -pronged admissibility analysis.
The first prong requires recognizing a new common
law rule of evidence. This is actually a really
big deal. You don't get new rules of evidence
very often. Under this rule, where the state
recruits an accused into a fictitious criminal
organization and seek to elicit a confession
from him, any confession made by the accused
to the state during the operation should be treated
as presumptively inadmissible. This presumption
of inadmissibility is overcome when the Crown
can establish on a balance of probabilities that
the probative value of the confession outweighs
its prejudicial effect. The probative value of
a Mr. Big confession is a function of its reliability.
In assessing the reliability of a Mr. Big confession,
courts must first look to the circumstances in
which the statement was made. These circumstances
include, but are not strictly limited to, the
length of the operation, the number of interactions
between the police and the accused, the nature
of the relationship between the undercover officers
and the accused, the nature and extent of the
inducement offered, the presence of any threats,
the conduct of the interrogation itself, and
the personality of the accused, including his
or her age, sophistication, and mental health.
The question for the trial judge is whether and
to what extent the reliability of the confession
has been called into doubt by the circumstances
in which it was made. After considering the circumstances
in which the confession was made, the court should
look to the confession itself for markers of
reliability. Trial judges should consider the
level of detail contained in the confession,
whether it leads to the discovery of additional
evidence, whether it identifies any elements
of the crime that have not been made public,
or whether it accurately describes mundane details
of the crime the accused would likely not know
had he or she not committed it. Confirmatory
evidence is not hard and fast requirements, but
where it exists, it can provide a powerful guarantee
of reliability. The greater the concern raised
by the circumstances in which the confession
was made, the more important it will be to find
markers of reliability in the confession itself
or the surrounding evidence. Weighing the prejudicial
effects of a Mr. Big confession is more straightforward
and a familiar exercise. Trial judges must be
aware that admitting Mr. Big confessions creates
a risk of moral and reasoning prejudice. With
respect to moral prejudice, the jury learns the
accused wanted to join a criminal organization
and committed a host of simulated crimes that
he believed were real. for this organization
and that can taint the view of a jury. Yeah,
completely get that. It's really simple. The
public would believe that somebody who committed
a crime is more likely to have also committed
this. So it's like. An unintentional side of
not unintentional. Of course, it's intentional
in setting this up very intend, but it's like
something some juries might not even be aware
of that. They're like, oh, well, they are already
like willing to commit crime. So they must have
done it. And not only that, they confessed to
killing someone else while committing a crime.
Yeah. So it makes it probably more believable
because they did it while committing crimes.
Yeah, and just so you understand too, the test
they're laying out now is actually a voir dire.
So that means whether or not this evidence gets
admitted doesn't go to the jury. It goes into
a different room where the defense and the crown
talk to the judge about whether or not this will
actually be accepted. And if it is accepted,
then it comes back into the court and is admitted
or it's never heard to the jury. OK, this new
common law rule of evidence goes a long way towards
addressing the concerns with reliability, prejudice
and police misconducts that are raised by Mr.
Big Operations. It squarely tackles the problem
with reliability and prejudice. In addition,
it takes account of police misconduct by both
placing the admissibility onus on the Crown and
by factoring the conduct of the police into the
assessment of a Mr. Big Confession's probative
value. However, the common law rule of evidence
I have proposed does not provide a complete response
to the problems raised by Mr. Big Operations.
On its own, it might suggest that abusive police
conduct will be forgiven so long as a demonstrably
reliable confession is ultimately secured. Can
I just interject here? I had a question about
hurt. Yes. Why did they choose him to do this
to? They really suspected that he killed his
daughters because his story didn't stand up.
Yeah, and he just seemed like he had a fourth
education. He had seizures, so he was probably
like a grade four education. Yeah. Yeah. Like
more to be like manipulate. Not that all of these
people are being manipulated, but I read a study.
It was put in the Manitoba Law Review. It basically
said, look at all these cases that two thirds
of these individuals displayed either mental
health issues, addiction or low IQs. But yeah,
that basically, I think, outlines the test that
is laid out in heart. Basically, it is inadmissible
unless the Crown can prove it has really important
information in it that needs to be heard by the
court and that it will not taint the jury's view
of this character by admitting these cases. The
second seems harder to do, but the first one,
if it's a confession, would they not automatically
just accept that, seeing as it's important information?
Not necessarily, no, because even with confessions.
They're not steadfastly admitted into courts
because you can be signing a confession under
duress and lied to being propositioned or just
not knowing exactly what even is in it. Well,
there's tons of people who give false confessions.
Yeah, exactly. And that's why if it was a confession,
there's actually an entire test on whether or
not a confession is admissible. Oh, that's good
to know. And that's why prior to this, Mr. Biggs
fell outside of that and they were just hearsay
evidence. That's it's a big deal. Right, okay,
that's a good point. So that is the test that
heart lays out. To this day, the Mr. Big program
is still alive and well. What? Yeah, I found
a case. This started in 2018, and this is a man
by the name of Greg Furtuk. His trial is still
ongoing, so I don't know how much of Mr. Big's
information is involved in it. As you were telling
the story, I was like, there's no way this is
legally happening anymore. The RCMP suspected
Greg Furtuk of murdering his then wife, ex -wife
at this point. The broad strokes of the plan
involved undercover officers posing as criminals
and convincing Greg to disclose the truth of
what happened to Shiri. They did this by playing
out 136 structured interactions known as scenarios
between the summer of 2018 and late spring of
2019. The majority were audio recorded and key
sessions were videotaped. It was called Project
Fiston. July 2018, two undercover police officers
set up a stand in an off -scale liquor store
in Saskatchewan that Furtuk frequented and the
officers pretended to be pollsters doing market
research on customers drinking habits. People
who filled out a survey were entered into a draw.
First prize was an all -expense paid trip to
Cancun, Mexico. Second prize was a trip to Canmore,
Alberta and third prize concert tickets in Saskatoon.
Greg entered with his girlfriend Doris and won
second prize. Furtuk did not know that all the
other couples who also won second prize and were
going to camp more, were all undercover RCMP
officers. The sting was tailored to take advantage
of Craig's interests and background. For instance,
officers knew that he had worked on CN Rails,
so criminal ventures involving transportation
were focused on. Craig learned that his fellow
contestants and their friends who they introduced
him to in Alberta, bought damaged vehicles in
the states and hauled them north for repairs
and resales at car dealerships. He also learned
through hints and overheard conversations that
there was a legal side of the business and an
illegal side. Sometimes the vehicles would be
sold on the side by unscrupulous dealers. The
criminal side was considerably more lucrative.
A legitimate trip might pay $80, while its illegal
version would pay $200. While on the Camorra
trip, Greg learned that one of the Alberta contestant
winners had a daughter going to the U of S in
Saskatoon. This gave the undercover cops a pretext
to stay in touch with Greg and Doris on their
return. The supposed daughter cultivated her
own relationship with Doris which the officer
testified was important because it wasn't known
whether she was an accessory to Shiri's alleged
murder or could be leverage against Greg later
in the sting. It was during Scenario 19 as they
call it in October of 2018 in Saskatoon that
officers actively introduced the criminal side
of the operation. Greg and an undercover cop
from the Canmore trip met a third man at a local
bar with Greg being asked along to watch his
back. The officer wanted him to conclude that
it smells like crime, it doesn't look like a
legitimate meat, he said. Afterwards, the undercover
officer explained that he worked for a sophisticated
criminal organization that was better than a
bike gang because we don't roll with patches
on our backs and didn't traffic in drugs because
that draws too much attention from the police.
It was that point that Greg indicated he wanted
to work in the criminal side of the organization.
And then some time passes and this is super messed
up. On January 1st of 2019, six months into the
stay, Greg slipped and cracked his head. He was
taken by ambulance to the hospital and then checked
himself out the same day. Six days later, the
undercover cops were contacted by Greg's girlfriend
and told that he was on the floor of their house
in medical distress and needed help. They got
such a relationship out of the that he fell and
was convulsing on the ground, and in undercover
police officers, the first person the girlfriend
calls. Yikes, not even an ambulance. They arrived
to find him collapsed, with swelling in his head.
He'd also soiled himself, but was adamantly refusing
to go back to the hospital. EMTs were called,
and he was finally convinced to go to the hospital.
And then in June of 2019, Greg made his disclosure
to the fake crime post that he killed Shiri,
his ex -wife. Is this not like some sort of coercion
or something if someone were to come along and
think that I like did something illegal and they're
wanting to like build a friendship with me and
then they start off slow like they're friends
and then they say yeah like start doing this
for me I'll give you like this much money and
I'm like wow okay like and then they actually
give you that money yeah that's a lot of money
and they're like paying for like hotels and stuff
and then they're like this is actually illegal
and it's a part of a big gang and stuff but you'll
make like more money than you do working as a
waitress. And I'd be like, why would I say no?
If I was, you know, they were supplying a life
that I wanted to live and couldn't do through
other means. If I was like, they focus on mentally
ill. Yeah. Low IQ. That was the next thing I
was going to say. Social loaners. They then one
of the guys was homeless. Like obviously I can't
get a job. You give me a million dollars. I'm
not. He has nothing else to lose like that's
why I say it's coercion like who would turn that
down and there was one I didn't put it in my
notes just because I could never find the actual
story but it was a lawyer YouTube that I found
really interesting. The guy was out on parole
and the Mr. Big Sting was taking him across provincial
borders to commit fake crimes. So they actually
talked to his parole officer to explain what
was going on and they okayed the exception for
parole for him to go across borders to commit
crimes because it was part of the Mr. Big scheme.
Yeah, more morally they okayed that yeah said
like that to me is a complete setup. Yeah Wow,
of course the likely did commit murder. That's
the thing I believe the guy's name is Edward
Barrett He has been convicted of murdering one
of his roommates in 2007 and burying the body
and then when he heard the police were looking
for it dug up the body and hit it somewhere else
and Through his evidence. They found where the
body was. Okay. I have another Wow. I have another
question. So people are assumed innocent until
proven guilty right this is all building the
evidence to get them to guilty to get them to
guilty and they are trying to build the evidence
to get there like to me this doesn't seem right
They're going on a hunch. Well, not necessarily
a hunch. It could be they have a lot of good
evidence. It's just that it's not enough to convict.
OK, so they really need something. And I guess
what I'm trying to say is if the police were
to take somebody in and just straight up interrogate
them, there's like all these rules that they
have to follow about leading and stuff like that.
Yeah. This seems to kind of get around it. Yeah,
because that is an interaction between a police
officer and a citizen. So a citizen says, I want
my lawyer, then they have to at least give him
the opportunity to get a lawyer. OK, this seems
so wrong. Yeah. Isn't that this wouldn't be with
the citizen then if they're setting him up. They're
professionally doing this. They're using our
taxpayer money to take them on vacations. We're
going to get into that part, too. OK, those are
just the examples I wanted to go over. Now we're
going to get into a bit of a legal review. So
this comes from the Manitoba Law Review, Volume
43, Issue 3. In total, there have been about
410 Mr. Big cases that have gone before the courts.
410? By the time the Hart case took place, 350
of them had gone before the court. And after
Hart, about 60 of them have gone through the
courts. So this is just what we're gonna focus
on now just to kind of give you an idea in total
59 court cases used the test laid out in heart
from 2015 to 2021 the confession was admitted
by the trial judge in 51 cases out of how many
of 59 In three cases, the evidence was excluded
based on the new common law confession rule,
lack of reliability, as made by heart. And it
was excluded in four cases due to the abuse of
process rule. In three cases, it was unclear
whether the confession was or would have been
excluded because the accused pled guilty after
or during the admissibility voir dire. In all
but two cases where the confession was admitted,
the accused was found guilty. three cases where
the confession was excluded and the following
outcomes resulted in the case being dismissed.
The Crown withdrew its case and the accused was
acquitted due to a lack of Crown evidence. In
two of the cases where the confession was thrown
out the accused was still found guilty at trial
but a stay was entered on appeal and the other
two cases the outcome of the case is unknown
as the trial decision was not reported. Between
1990 and 2008 Mr. Big was allegedly used a total
of three hundred with the majority of cases prosecuted
resulting in a conviction. If the number is accurate
it means that prior to Hart there were 14 cases
on average per year including those that made
it and did not make it to trial. Since Hart there
have been 11 cases per year that have made it
to trial. Note that this number does not account
for some of the unreported cases, where the accused
pled guilty, unreported cases that did not result
in trial for any other reason, or cases which
were ongoing at the time of our review. Therefore,
HART does not appear to have had any impact on
either the number of cases brought to the trial
or the number of cases where the evidence was
excluded based on either of the framework's prongs.
The fact that most operations all but eight were
completed or started pre -HART indicates that
the HART factors would not have been considered
when designing the operations. It is interesting
to note that despite the fact that the confessions
considered by judges since 2014 originated from
operations designed pre -heart, these confessions
were still mostly admitted when judges applied
the heart framework. Isn't that messed up? Yeah.
Like they put this thing in place to say, look,
these are bad. We need to at least meet the standard.
And pretty much all of them are meeting it, despite
the fact that all these investigations started
prior to the test being out. So the cops wouldn't
have taken into account. So most of them should
have been thrown out. Yeah. This is all mind
blowing to me, really. Yeah. That this is something
that's happening legally. Let's talk about some
critiques. Let's just talk about a Mr. Big investigation.
How much do you think one Mr. Big investigation
costs start to finish not taking into account
the cost of salaries for the undercover police
officers? Oh, gosh, I'm going to go into like
probably just in what you've said, I'm going
to go with like more than thousands of dollars,
like hundred thousand dollars. Actually, not
bad. It's estimated that the average Mr. Big
Tactic case is over one hundred and fifty thousand
dollars per investigation. Wow. Figure does not
include the number of police resources used to
carry out the tactic either. Like, do you know
with that what it would be estimate? It's probably
so high. I do not know. Like we're talking about
with heart, wasn't it, that that case went on
one hundred and sixty three encounters. Each
one of those encounters had at least one undercover
police officer in there. Yeah, they're not going
to be making tiny salaries. The success rate
of Mr. Big Cases, as stated, is anywhere from
75 % to 95%. and they determine success based
on convictions or the exclusion of a suspect.
This seems so like crooked to me. Yeah. And the
part that is really frustrating, too, is we'll
never know how many Mr. Big investigations were
undertaken because we will only ever hear about
them when it actually results in a case that
goes to trial and they actually try to submit
the evidence through a voir dire. So this is
just like a common thing that is used in Canada.
Again, we know how many cases have gone to court.
We do not know how many resulted in the person
was ruled out as a suspect. They got some evidence,
but not enough to actually bring it to trial.
Or they started one and just stopped it because
they didn't have enough time or cops or whatever
it may be. And this is key to the Mr. Big investigations
to is they need to keep them private because
if the common citizens knew what a Mr. Big investigation
was or that they were ongoing. It would absolutely
destroy any ability for the Mr. Big investigation
to do what it's proposed to do. How is it not
commonly like it? Did you know about it outside
of me? No. And I guess the media is not covering
it. And well, not only that, like it's redacted
or confidential information is not well known.
And that's why we only know about the cases that
have gone to court. OK. Which is, I'm assuming,
how you found out about it? Yeah, my first introduction
to it was in Crimlaw 101 with Rebecca Johnson
at UVic, who made me read heart. This is crazy.
Like this, to me, has like some serious moral
implications, and I'm surprised that it's even
admissible at all. Many countries agree with
you. Mr. Big Style investigations are prohibited
in the US, UK and Germany. However, they have
some admissibility in New Zealand and Australia.
There are some legal articles out about the Canadian
Mr. Big style of investigation and its impact
on the Australian court system. But I unfortunately,
I ran out of time and was unable to kind of explore
that venue. Although there is something else
that the UK is doing that I find just as reprehensible.
And I'll touch on that in a minute. But for the
most part, I'm just going to keep going on with
these critiques. OK. Another thing, Mr. Big Investigations
leave victims and their families without an answer
as to what's going on with their investigation
because they are confidential investigations.
The families deserve a thorough and forthright
investigation by police. It is not in the interest
of victims to have evidence gathered through
a Mr. Big investigation that will likely be viewed
as suspect at best or excluded from trial at
worst. to be what's relied on. Furthermore, it's
in the community's best interests that police
investigations are conducted in a manner that
instills confidence in the criminal justice system.
In the interest of serving the public and obtaining
justice, police forces should consider the inherent
flaws of the Mr. Big technique and critically
reflect on its use. While the criminal justice
system has its failings, public confidence in
the legitimacy of the system is essential for
its operation. By using the Mr. Big technique,
police investigators risk public and community
confidence in their methods and criminal justice
system and its outcome have little chance of
being seen as fair or just. Yeah, it's not. That's
a correct state. That's a correct critique. So
that is all the information i have on mr big
obviously if you don't like this which god i
don't know how you could talk to your member
of parliament or your rcmp attachment and let
them know that this is a terrible policy to be
following um if you are from another country
look into whether a mr big operation is legal
or not in your country because these are terrible
they are Wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars
per investigation to in to coerce somebody into
admitting guilt. How would they know if it's
happening in their country, Mr. Break? How would
I know you would operating in Canada? Do I just
Mr. Big Operation Canada? Yeah. Basically, what
you would do is Google your country or your country's
police force and add in our Mr. Big Canada. and
it will likely give you some sort of information
on whether or not it is being used. It does come
right up. Yes. And I do apologize for doing a
very Western oriented view of who's using it.
But that's from what I could find. I didn't unfortunately
have time to go through 200 different entries
to see if it's legal in certain countries. Apology
accepted. Oh, good. I do also have to edit the
episodes. But to go on one thing I just wanted
to explore as like a side project That I sound
super fucked up because the UK says mr. Big is
too far I heard about this about his beginning
of the year a climate activist Just was awarded
a 229 ,000 pound compensation by the UK courts
for such a weird undercover sting that the UK
Oh, what's it? I forget the name of their police
force Scotland yard Maybe. Well, anyways, the
Metropolitan Police did. The undercover officer
was in a two year intimate relationship with
an eco activist. OK. The entire time undermining
the process of their organization, getting involved
and spying on everybody involved in the organization.
And then when it was discovered who he was, he
ran away. Oh, no. Yeah. That's so sad. Yeah,
he was in a committed romantic relationship with
somebody in the group for two years and then
fled. Like, super messed up story. That's like
the same thing as Mr. Big. It is, yeah. It's
like the same exact thing. And I guess that's
why she got money for it, but still they did
it and it cost about as much as a Mr. Big investigation.
It's a little worse because she got intimate
with this guy who's an undercover cop. To me,
it's the same thing friend. Well, yeah, relationship.
Still the same moral lines are being crossed.
Yeah. Anyhow, that's that's all I got today,
Chelsea. Any questions? Yeah. Well, it's not
really a question. Is that just like existentially
demoralizing? It is. It's totally demoralizing.
And I thought what you were getting with was
heard is that they no longer do it now, which
just like whether or not it's admissible in court.
But no, they put a test in place and then they
didn't. Other to actually make it a worthwhile
just like it brings in some serious moral questions
because they're police they know about how to
interrogate people in the proper ways that it
should be done and they're purposely going around
those so that they can use it under a different
exception to use a confession when there's laws
in place so that you can get a proper confession
or I'm just really dumbing it down there you
know what I mean and they're purposefully circumventing
that. Yeah, and they get just so completely morally
questionable what they're doing, not even morally
questionable. It's just wrong. Yeah. They literally
sat down in a room, it seems like, and said,
OK, all these onuses on us seem really hard.
But what if we weren't cops, at least in their
mind? Yeah. But it shouldn't matter because the
laziest way to do it at the end of the day. That's.
The way they're trained so they should be held
to those same moral standards Exactly. Yeah,
they are that they've chosen as a career not
I'm gonna be doing my career, but they don't
know that I'm just the guy that you call when
your spouse is having a seizure on the kitchen
floor. Yeah That's it like yeah, and then it's
all done because we got your confession that
we coerced out of you pretty much it's the same
thing like you lead people in a confession and
there's all these like people giving false confessions
which is why there's all that stuff in place
and to me that's the same thing they're leading
them to can you imagine that though you have
no money at all some guy comes along and starts
paying you and it ends up being 15 grand and
he says by the way we need to know about you
killing this person and if you don't tell us
about it like this money's just cut off Yeah,
absolutely. And like, don't worry if you say
you did it. We have people within the police
that we can pay to get rid of the evidence. So
don't worry about it. Just tell us you did it.
But they won't. Yeah, because they are the police.
That's just absolutely crazy. And there's no
morals involved. And yeah. That just puts more
questions even after that Gabriel Wirtman one.
That was a good episode. RCMP's hands are not
clean. That is why the uniform is red to cover
the blood stains that her riddled about. Yeah,
no kidding. As they are. That was a really good
episode though. I'm glad you liked it. Anyhow,
we have been Taylor and Chelsea reminding you
that any person giving you friendly help is likely
an undercover police officer, be sure to yell
pig in their face and run away. Except if they're
actually offering you free money. Take the money
until they want you to commit crime. Yeah, but
don't confess. Take the money and don't confess.
And sorry, once again, I do need to end this
episode. We are not legal advice. If this is
something is presented before you, please talk
to a lawyer again. We got a lawyer if you need
it. Yeah, don't write that down. Anyhow, thanks
for listening. Bye. venue you are listening to
us through. Also, please, if possible, leave
a five -star review, as that really helps us
in the algorithms. Should you wish to interact
with us, please check us out on your social media
of choice. I bet you we are there. And if you
really want to communicate with us and give us
ideas for new episodes or tell us that we're
wrong and terrible, either way, please send us
an email at journeytothefringe at gmail .com.
For now, I'll see you in the next episode.