# Air India Suspects Found Not Guilty 2005/2022 Update



## dutchie (16 Mar 2005)

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=45826894-6d05-4b13-9f4e-3370ebc7a067

Bagri and Malik found not guilty

March 16, 2005

VANCOUVER (CP) -- Ajaib Singh Bagri and Ripudaman Singh Malik both found not guilty in bombing of Air India Flight 182. 

About 100 people began lining up outside the B.C. Supreme Court building under tight security and in a steady rain trying to get seats to hear Justice Ian Josephson's verdict. 

In the end, the fate of Malik, 58, hung on the stories of a small handful of witnesses who testified against him in the trial by judge alone. The judge said those witnesses were not credible. 

Josephson was still to pass judgment on Ajaib Singh Bagri, 55, who along with Malik had faced charges of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder in the downing of Flight 182. They were also charged in an explosion at Japan's Narita airport that killed two baggage handlers on the same day. 

There was almost no hard evidence linking Malik, a high-profile Vancouver millionaire, or Bagri, a sawmill worker from Kamloops, B.C., to the bombings.

Josephson found Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri not guilty on all eight charges each man faced, including first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. 


Malik, 58, and Bagri, 55, had also been charged in an explosion at Japan's Narita airport that killed two baggage handlers on the same day. They were found not guilty of those charges as well. 

It has been widely speculated that an appeal of the verdict will be launched in a higher court and family members have called for a public inquiry into the handling of the case. 

The list of key witnesses included two former female confidantes of the accused and a convicted murderer. 

The destruction of evidence by the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, meanwhile, was singled out by the judge for criticism as "unacceptable negligence.'' 

The two men were accused of blowing up a plane bound for Mumbai from Vancouver via Toronto, Montreal and London in a plot inspired by religious revenge after the Indian army stormed the Golden Temple in Amritsar, Sikhism's holiest shrine, in June 1984. 

A third man, Inderjit Singh Reyat, pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his part in the downing of Flight 182, a Boeing 747 operated by India's state-run airline. 

Reyat, an electrician from Duncan, B.C., was handed another five-year jail term on top of the 10 years he was serving on manslaughter and explosives charges related to the Narita bombing. 

The Crown argued that after the attack on the Golden Temple, Vancouver's large ex-pat Sikh community was bubbling with rage, which those at the heart of the plot exploited. 

Bagri and Malik, prosecutors argued, obsessed over terrorist plots to create a Sikh homeland in India. The two belonged to groups, since outlawed in Canada, that blamed the Indian government for mistreating Sikhs. 

The suspected mastermind of the plot was Talwinder Singh Parmar, prosecutors told the trial, which was held in a specially built multimillion-dollar courtroom with protective glass separating the accused and lawyers from the public gallery. 

Like other alleged co-conspirators and insiders, Parmar is dead. He was killed in a shootout with Indian police in 1992. 

Reyat said Parmar asked him to get components to build a bomb that would be detonated in India, but he was never told they would be used to bring down a plane. 

At the end of the 233-day trial, the Crown and defence agreed that the credibility of a woman whom Malik confided in was pivotal in the case against him. 

She stepped out of her life of hiding in the witness protection program to tell the court Malik confessed to organizing a plan to smuggle two bombs on Vancouver flights that would be transferred to two Air India jets. 

The plan, she said, was for the explosives, hidden in suitcases, to detonate at the same time while the planes soared on opposite sides of the world. 

But things didn't go according to plan, according to the woman. 

One bomb blew up on schedule, shattering Flight 182 as it flew off the coast of Ireland. 

The second device detonated prematurely, killing the two baggage workers in Tokyo. The bomb _ which went off 54 minutes before Flight 182 fell from the sky _ was supposed to be transferred in luggage from a Canadian Airlines flight from Vancouver to another Air India jet destined for Delhi via Bangkok. 

Although the woman said she and Malik fell in love, there was no evidence of a physical affair between them. The confidante is among 10 protected witnesses who cannot be identified. 

The court heard that Malik, a businessman in the strict Sikh community, poured his heart out to her in April 1986. 

She said that Malik told her: "We had Air India crash. Nobody, I mean nobody, can do anything. It is all for Sikhism.'' 

In the spring of 1997, Malik went further, she said, and confessed that he was the one who had purchased two airline tickets to fly the bombs in suitcases out of Vancouver. 

Malik's defence team dismissed the woman as a disgruntled former employee of the businessman who had been fired. 

"She had bitterness, anger and hatefulness toward Malik and others,'' defence lawyer David Crossin told the court, adding that without her evidence, ``the case against Malik vanishes.'' 

The same 20-year-old memories of second-hand confessions swirled around Bagri, Malik's alleged logistics man. 

Bagri was heavily involved in the movement to create Khalistan, the independent homeland some Sikhs wanted, and called for followers of the religion to take up arms during speeches. 

Bagri was described by prosecutor Bob Wright as "a militant Sikh terrorist.'' The court watched videotapes of Bagri rallying his people with violent slogans. 

"Until we kill 50,000 Hindus we will not rest,'' he preached at a massive gathering of Sikhs in Madison Square Garden in New York in July 1984. 

In September 1985, Bagri allegedly admitted to a man in the United States that he was responsible for the bombings. 

The man was a mole for the FBI and was later paid about $460,000 by the RCMP to testify at the trial. The cash was paid out after the man, known only as John, had told American police about the confession. 

Bagri's lawyers tried to discredit the informant as a criminal who was looking for money, noting that he spent time in jail after his brother was killed in a machete attack in India and that he lied to immigration officials to get into the U.S. 

The Crown said the brother was killed when John stepped in to the middle of a family brawl and, in protecting himself, he caused the fatal stab wound. 

The death of Parmar meant an already cold trail in the investigation into the bombing would sink into the deep freeze. 

Court heard that CSIS had been following Parmar, Malik and Bagri but weren't able to come up with anything. 

Important notes and tips were destroyed instead of being shared with the RCMP in a clash of personalities between officers and supervisors in the two security organizations. Information on suspects was further buried in turf wars. 

Bagri's lawyer Michael Code was critical of CSIS, Canada's spy agency, when it emerged that wiretap and interview tapes against his client had been erased. While some translations of the telephone conversations survived, Code described them as cryptic, inconsistent and unreliable. 

The erased interview tape was of a woman who told a CSIS agent that Bagri tried to borrow her car to take bomb-laden baggage to Vancouver's airport. 

In court, the woman complained of memory loss around Bagri's actions and what she told the CSIS agent. 

Justice Josephson later allowed the agent's notes of his conversations with the woman to be used as evidence against Bagri. 

Only 132 bodies from Flight 182 were recovered by military and merchant vessels that worked on the recovery effort. 



© Canadian Press 2005


Wow, I don't know about the rest of you, but this was a huge surprise to me.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Mar 2005)

Me too - you'd think that the most expensive and extensive investigation in RCMP history would be pretty solid.

Look to the appeal.


----------



## Sheerin (16 Mar 2005)

From what was being reported in the media, it sounded like the entire investigation was bungled, but thats just based on news reports.  I hope there is a public inquiry into how CSIS and the RCMP were unable to work together effectively on this case.

As for an appeal, I don't know.  Is there a credible reason for the crown to appeal?


----------



## George Wallace (16 Mar 2005)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> I hope there is a public inquiry into how CSIS and the RCMP were unable to work together effectively on this case.



How much will that cost us taxpayers?

The cost of this trial was well over $140 million.  

If only I could get onto one of those "Inquiries" and make some of those Mega Bucks.....look at all the Lawyers working on the Gomery Inquiry......Mega Bucks.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Mar 2005)

Too bad the government doesnt set the wages of lawyers like they do in national health.


----------



## winchable (16 Mar 2005)

They built the bloody court specifically for the trial.
Expensive and extensive as Infanteer said!

Will the crown appeal? Anyone?
The balls in their court.


----------



## TCBF (16 Mar 2005)

It is the "Criminal Justice Industry."   It has to recycle freaks and murderers back out on the street in order to keep all of those judges and lawyers in SUVs and hookers.   Rozcko should not have been loose.   He should have still been in jail.   Does the Law Society of Soviet Kanuckistan care about those four Mounties?   Nope. To them it was an "industrial accident."

Tom


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Mar 2005)

Appeal: wait until the written judgement is out- there will be a better opportunity to examine the reasons for decision. This was a very complicated case, with a lot of evidence for the court to weigh. When a public source for the decision becomes available I will post it. Don't beat up the crown or the judge until we see the full extent of the decision.


And, here is the written decision:  http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/05/03/2005BCSC0350.htm 

It is a very long read. I will pull the relevant reasons for decision over the next few days.

Cheers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2005)

I certainly hope it gets overturned on appeal. This whole outcome make me sick.


----------



## kincanucks (16 Mar 2005)

Bagri and Malik found not guilty


Robert Blake acquitted in wife's murder

Anyone else confused?


----------



## Stirling N6123 (16 Mar 2005)

kincanucks,

Just wait until Wako Jack is found not guilty, and Scott Peterson gets a last minute pardon from Arnold at 23:59 before sentence is carried out.

I am kinda disgusted and embarrassed by the whole Air India fiasco. If the RCMP and CSIS are found to have messed things up, that would be the icing on the cake. And with the amount of money thrown to the wind on the trial, and the building of the court, I wonder if any was left over for the public inquire. One thing I have found interesting is that guy Bagri, was to have spoken at a rally in New york some years back. At this rally, he was to have stated , that they will not rest until they kill over 100'000 Indians. Anyway, just another slow news day in Canada

recceguy,

Pass the bucket.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Mar 2005)

If the evidence didn't support guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the outcome is what I would expect.

However, if the case was weak, I would not have expected it to proceed to trial.  In my mind, the interesting question is whether it was genuinely believed the prosecution could win with the evidence at hand.  Can you imagine if all that was done - and the money expended - merely for the sake of being seen to do something?


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Mar 2005)

My initial comments are that the trial judge appears to have omitted some of the evidence presented at trial. Also, the legal analysis with respect to weighing the relevance, credibility and probative value is actually quite shallow. The findings are made, but directing the analysis to the findings on the evidence is difficult and confusing in this judgement. 

If the Crown concludes that certain influential evidence was omitted, misconstrued or given short shrift by the trial judge, then they are virtually obligated to appeal. The analysis of the evidence in a 600+ page judgement appears without any recognizable perspective, but the size of the judgment is also cloaking some hidden nuggets of analysis. I am puzzled and somewhat concerned by this. It may be that supplementary and clearer reasons for judgement are in the offing. Perhaps the trial judge was suffering a bit of writers fatigue while working towards a tight deadline. 

2 points raised on the media coverage of this judgement:

 First, there was a woman who claims that the investigation and outcome would have been different had the victims been "white Anglo saxons" - a remark that is pure horseshit and an insult to the investigators and the Crown - the team had at least 4 QC on board. The chances of an incompetent prosecution and investigation are between zero and nil. 
Second, an elderly gentleman suggested that this decision and this case was far too much for one judge to manage and render a decision- I agree. Perhaps it is time to have 3 or 5 panel judges in trials of first instance that are of this scale and importance.

The Crown has appealed cases on worse findings than this and have overcome findings such as those found in this judgement.

IMHO, cost is going to be the single most influential factor for the Crown to consider in mounting an appeal. 

If this judgement stands without appeal, or is lost on appeal, the transformation of Canada into a safe legal jurisdiction for terrorists will be complete.


----------



## Stirling N6123 (17 Mar 2005)

If it goes to appeal, then you will have a panel of 4 or 5 judges.


----------



## Sheerin (17 Mar 2005)

Who would, if they accepted the crown's arguments, order a new trial which will probably have only one judge and no jury.  Of course the defandants could ask for a trial by Jury but I kinda doubt they will...


----------



## CBH99 (17 Mar 2005)

What a waste of time and money.  They build a whole new building, just for this one case, then aquit those being charged based in omitted evidence, and a general "bungling" of the investigation?  Ugh!

Not too sound too drastic, but where are the Boondock Saints when you need em'?


----------



## winchable (17 Mar 2005)

To quote the judge...


> ...acts which cry out for justice.   Justice is not achieved, however, if persons are convicted on anything less than the requisite standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.



Sometimes I think law isn't always about "getting the conviction" or placing the blame(especially in a free and democratic society) so much as it's about ensuring that justice is served.
Justice as a whole concept isn't just about seeing someone hang for a crime, it's also about ensuring that the accused aren't being railroaded, and if the judge had any doubts (especially in a criminal case) about the crowns case then he made the right call.

Like it or not the accused do have the right to a fair trial and if convicted they should be convicted on evidence and proof that leaves no doubt not because of 20 years of monetary waste, a new building and bungled investigation.


----------



## dutchie (17 Mar 2005)

Just to clarify, they didn't build a whole new building, just a room...albeit a very expensive room ($7 million IIRC). The room has been used since the trial, and will be used in the future for high security/sensitive cases. 

I think the bigger beef is how the RCMP and CSIS shat the bed in the investigation...erasing wire tap evidence, breaking procedures, etc.....also, the fact the case hinged on 2 people who the judge said were untruthful, unreliable, and not believable should have been known to the Crown prior to going to trial.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Mar 2005)

Che said:
			
		

> Like it or not the accused do have the right to a fair trial and if convicted they should be convicted on evidence and proof that leaves no doubt not because of 20 years of monetary waste, a new building and bungled investigation.



Hear hear.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Mar 2005)

In our rush to celebrate the fact that the standard of proof was not achieved in this case due to the quality of the evidence relied upon by the Crown, lets not forget that other evidence was excluded due to the nature or manner  in which it was obtained, and thus did not form any part of the trial judges reasons for judgement. It is also noteworthy that this was ostensibly an international investigation, yet little [if any] incriminating evidence from those sources appear on the judgement.   

I understand the bulk of the costs in this trial were related to the Crown prosecution and related concerns arising therefrom, and not the actual defence tendered. That being said, it was also one of the most expensive defences put on in the history country, but possibly not the most expensive. IIRC, there was a criminal action in Edmonton that never went to trial where the defence team may have billed more than in this case- of course, there were no convictions there either.

Look for the Ipperwash Inquiry to be within the top 5 in terms of cost.


----------



## Stirling N6123 (17 Mar 2005)

> Like it or not the accused do have the right to a fair trial and if convicted they should be convicted on evidence and proof that leaves no doubt not because of 20 years of monetary waste, a new building and bungled investigation.
> 
> Hear hear.



I agree that a fair trial should be granted to everyone convicted under the law. But they have spent an awful lot of my money on this one case. My money. Your money, all of our money....and for what? To find that certain evidence was not gathered properly? And therefore is not admissible in court?

Would justice be more served if the evidence was allowed resulting in a conviction? As opposed to the justice being less served, and not allowing the evidence, releasing back into society, 2 individuals responsible for the deaths of over 300 people.

(Addition after rereading my post) A point on that last statement, justice would be less served if the police were not allowed to stop your car and ask if you have been drinking, which in the past some have viewed as a violation of section 9 of the Charter of rights, The right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. But the courts ruled that justice is more served to have people stopped, or in some cases detained while you are asked if you have been drinking, to quell the evil of drunk driving. It's just a comparison to say how the courts respond to an act, or a ruling, or a violation of ones rights to see how justice is better served. By no way am I making an argument that the admission or in admission of evidence is the same as being stopped in your car. It is just an example of why the courts determine how justice is better served. 

I guess if a public enquiry is held, we will find out just how the evidence was collected, how truly credible or non-credible the witnesses were. More money, more time, less justice, more pain. And adding insult to injury for the remaining family members.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Mar 2005)

Stirling N6123 said:
			
		

> releasing back into society, 2 individuals responsible for the deaths of over 300 people.



That is the whole point.  They were *not* found to be responsible.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Mar 2005)

But ... in R.v. Stillman the court also ruled that inculpatory evidence obtained in violation of the Charter ought to be considered by the trial judge when such evidence is clear and convincing and without which a conviction could not be obtained and that not to admit such evidence would violate public policy by bringing the administration of justice into disrepute by letting a violent offender enjoy freedom while putting the public at further risk. [notice the victim plays no role in this legal construct.] 

To use plainer terms from contract law, an accused is not entitled to unjust enrichment from a Charter based defence.   Is it not true that in pith and substance, the Charter is really a contract which governs the relations between citizen and state?

Cheers.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Mar 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> To use plainer terms from contract law, an accused is not entitled to unjust enrichment from a Charter based defence.     Is it not true that in pith and substance, the Charter is really a contract which governs the relations between citizen and state?



Whiskey - you are hurting my brain....as I wander yet again into the vast fields of my own ignorance.

How was the accused enriched by the Charter based defence?

Dave


----------



## Stirling N6123 (18 Mar 2005)

whiskey601,

I agree, If I can take an excerpt from the supreme court decision, *R*_v_Stillman..... Lamer J, "A decision to admit or exclude evidence under s. 24(2) is essentially a matter of weighing all the relevant circumstances and balancing those favouring admission against those favouring exclusion. In the end the judge must decide whether, viewed objectively, admission or exclusion will do more harm to the repute of the administration of justice."

If the judge in this case determind that specific evidence, gained by the RCMP and CSIS was truly inadmissible, then the judge has his or her reasons for disallowing it to be entered in as evidence. Obviously, the judge must have felt that justice, and the public at large would be less served to have the evidence allowed, than it would have to allow the evidence.

The point is PPCLI,  not that they were found NOT responsible......it's HOW were they found not responsible. Merely saying that a witness is not credible, and disallowing certain pieces of information is not good enough in my mind. And for the government to say that an inquiry is not needed is Hogwash.

Money well wasted.


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Mar 2005)

You are familiar with the term " ...demonstrably reasonable in a free and democratic society." 

I held Stillman out as an example of a conviction in the face of a clear violation of a Charter Right v- the right to be free from an unreasonable search. The case was a serious criminal matter- while the accused was in custody and before he was charged, the police removed a kleenes from a garbage can in the washroom of a police station. The accused was charged with an offence and the best evidence of the Crown was DNA evidence obtained from the kleenex. The defence argued the DNA sample was not given voluntarily and was obtained without a warrant. The trial judge agreed (I believe). The case was appealed by one side or the other all the way to the Supreme Court. There, the court ruled the sample was obtained illegally and clearly violated the Charter, and that the method of obtaining the sample could not be saved as being demonstrably reasonable etc. This is because a warrant could be obtained for a blood sample.

However, the court ruled that the conviction should stand because to release the accused based on the exclusion of such clear and convincing evidence [i.e. a blood sample obtained with a warrant] would have produced the same inculpatory evidence as that upon which the accused was convicted. The court ruled that because the accused committed such a horrible offence, it would be an affront to the administration of justice to let him go unpunished. This is analogous to unjust enrichment- obtaining the benefit of that which one is not entitled to under a bargain or contract. 

The Charter lays out the ground work for how an accused is to be treated by the state. The accused is entitled to raise a Charter defence, but not always entitled to a Charter victory due to the wrongful actions of the police. An truly monstrous accused would be unjustly enriched by stifling the truth. Justice is not always the dark side of the law, or something like that.   

In summary, a violation of the Charter by the state does not operate as an automatic get out of jail free card, it never has and it never will- there will always be exceptions. How would anybody ever be convicted if every defence invoking the Charter was succesful?


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2005)

Personally I find the outcome truly disgusting, and sends a message throughout the world, that terrorism pays in Canada. What a joke the justice system is, and quite frankly that judge should hang his head in shame. Seriously, just who's side is he on anyways.

These murdering cowards may have gotten away with it now, but justice will come in the afterlife!


Truly disgusted,

Wes


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Mar 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> In summary, a violation of the Charter by the state does not operate as an automatic get out of jail free card, it never has and it never will- there will always be exceptions. How would anybody ever be convicted if every defence invoking the Charter was succesful?



Thanks - now I understand.

I guess, like many, I have to rely on the judicial system to "do the right thing", all while "doing the thing right".  In most cases, I am quite happy to do that - and in reality, I lack the background or influence to change that fact.  But, given the extent to which I apply critical analysis to so many other facets of life, I guess it behooves me to know more about the working of the judicial system - especuiially if i am going to publically support it.

Thanks again for the succint explanation.  I learned something today...

Dave


----------



## Slim (19 Mar 2005)

*We're wimps*

*OUR COUNTRY POSTURES BUT IT ISN'T REALLY TAKEN SERIOUSLY*, WRITES PETER WORTHINGTON

By PETER WORTHINGTON, TORONTO SUN

WHAT A WIMPY country Canada has become -- and that's putting it gently. When Palestinian terrorists murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, Israel sent Mossad to track down and eliminate the assassins. 

It wasn't "law," but it sure was "justice." Rough justice. 

When Libya sponsored terrorism and gave sanctuary to terrorists, U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1986 unleashed F-111 fighter jets to attack Col. Khadaffy -- which persuaded the tyrant to cool such behaviour. 

After 9/11, President George W. Bush took action against terrorism (while Canada urged restraint). 

20 YEARS, THEN NOTHING 

After the bomb on Air India flight 182 killed some 320 Canadians in 1985, Canada waited 20 years -- then found the accused "Not Guilty." 

This is not to say that Canada should have emulated Mossad and gone after the perpetrators, but a 20-year hiatus resulting in a "not-guilty" verdict is an obscenity of another sort. 

Platitudes about "law" being more important than "justice" don't wash in this case. 

Twenty years later and a trial of almost two years and a not-guilty verdict that cost $125 million-plus is outrageous and scandalous. 

So what went wrong? Why was the Crown's case against Ajaib Singh Bagri and Ripudaman Singh Malik so weak? 

The answer: Feuding between CSIS and the RCMP. 

In 1985 the Canadian Security Intelligence Service had replaced the RCMP Security Service, which was deemed to have discredited itself with "dirty tricks," barn burnings in Quebec and such. 

This was largely a fabricated scandal, with several simultaneous inquiries to discredit the Mounties. When it was learned that RCMP Security had been surreptitiously checking mail and bugging suspects for some 40 years, the government and others were horrified. 

The fact that RCMP clandestine surveillance wasn't used to hinder careers or discredit people was ignored - and from my viewpoint showed impressive restraint and discretion. 

They were trying to protect the nation. 

When CSIS was formed, the greatest threat to Canada was Soviet subversion. People like me, who tended to trust RCMP Security (which was never allowed to prosecute and convict a single Soviet agent since the Gouzenko days) felt CSIS would be pathetically vulnerable to KGB penetration. 

CSIS recruited bilingual university graduates. It takes little imagination to realize it'd be easier for the Soviets to penetrate CSIS than RCMP Security, whose members had to go through the rigorous boot camp training. 

Put bluntly, the RCMP didn't trust CSIS. 

And CSIS elite tended to feel superior to RCMP "horsemen." There was little mutual confidence. 

RCMP friends have told me they were reluctant to use evidence gathered by CSIS at trials because CSIS didn't necessarily abide by rules and defence lawyers could more easily get it thrown out. 

CSIS, too, was reluctant to share information with the RCMP -- hence the destruction of almost 75% of the taped interviews and evidence in the Air India case. 

CSIS supposedly had a mole inside the Sikh terror group, but pulled him out during the planning of the bomb because it didn't want him implicated. True or not, this indicates a mind-set. 

CSIS WAS INEPT 

The RCMP Security Service was always better than it is given credit for. It was politics that prevented prosecutions and convictions of spies. 

In those early days, CSIS was inept -- except for the RCMP Security types who switched services. That may help explain some of what went wrong in this fiasco of a trial. 

Now there are calls for an inquiry. 

What's the point? How many Canadian inquiries have ever amounted to much? The Somalia Inquiry was called off when it embarrassed the government. 

In Canada, inquiries are often a means of diffusing attention and distracting criticism. 

It all adds up to the reality that we really are a wimpy country that postures but isn't taken seriously. 

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/03/18/964889-sun.html


Normally when I post a news story I do just that and don't comment...However this time I feel the urge to say a few words.

After reading the article above I am left agreeing completely with Peter Worthington's view of how "fluffy" Canada has become.

We have, it seems, come to a place in the modern world were we (the Canadian public) believe that its BAD to fight wars. 

The ending of life regardless of the reason is too horrible a thing to contemplate, and so, must never happen.

This is the worst kind of wishful thinking.

We (the Canadian public) hold ourselves morrally superior to the United States...Despite the fact that they have given us a near-perfect security umbrella for so many years and are the only reason that we have not yet been attacked in the current conflict (insert method of choice here)

A recent event in my life served to illustrate this quite literally...Coffee with my cousin Katie ( a monthly ritual in my world) Katie is as different from me as, say, apples and potato chips.

She is a delight to be with, offering her older cousin (Katie is 24) a glimps into the world of dance, street festivals (she majored in dance at university and is now trying very hard to make a career out of what she enjoyes doing more than anything in the world) and the youth culture of today.

As we sit in an Avante Gard coffee shop along the "strip" in the Beaches area of Toronto, we discuss many things both family oriented and other.

The talk eventually turnes to war, as she is as interested in my world as I am in hers.

During the couse of the conversation I ask her; "Katie, what do you think of the the United States invading Iraq?"

"Oohhh that George Bush," she says, with passion aflame in her pretty green eyes and her slim dancer's body springing erect with indignation, "He's so stupid!"

More shocked than anything I asked her why she thought so?

"Well...He just goes around invading whomever he pleases! Imagine if he decided to invade us!" (I'm now paraphrazing somewhat)

When I explain to her that it is unlikely to happen as Canadian society is not suffering at the hands of a psycotic dictator and his ruthless extended family, she insists that no matter the what it was wrong and he shouldn't have been allowed to do it. (invade)

Eventually we went on to a different topic, she stubbornly stuck on the wrongness of violence directed at evil people. Me shaking my head and hoping like hell she never has to find out that she's wrong. 

As she continued to speak about the things that are important to her I wondered what will happen to the Katies of the country when (not if) we are attacked. 

How many Katies will be buried because the Government of the day lacks the will to stand up to the Canadian pulic and, more importantly, the Canadian press, and tell them what needs to be done...That this Garden of Eden we live in is every bit as vulnerable as the United States is...And will, eventually be struck at, the same as everyone else has been.

I look at Katie, who looks so cute and cuddly, sitting in a comfy overstuffed chair next to a fireplace in the trendy coffe shop we're presently inhabiting, and wonder how many more times I'll be able to have coffee with my cousin in peace...Before* IT * comes... 

A famous person from 19th century America (Ben Franklin I believe) said that the Tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots, as freedom isn't ever free...

In Canada we seem to have forgotten...

Slim


----------



## Stirling N6123 (19 Mar 2005)

Peter is blunt in his remarks, too the point and often not wrong. 

I feel like I have been put in my place regarding my previous post of needing an inquiry. The way he puts it, he has a valid point. 20 years, foot dragging, spending good hard money and as echoed by previous posters, for what? 

I am starting to think we need someone in Ottawa that can take this country by the horns, and start to lead us in some sort of direction. Other than into the wasteful, political boondogglers we have become.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Mar 2005)

C B C . C A   N e w s   -   F u l l   S t o r y :
Unsealed documents name Bagri and Malik as Air India conspirators
Last Updated Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:14:51 EST
CBC News

VANCOUVER - One week after the acquittals in the Air India trial comes new information that both Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri were named as members of the plot by the wife of the only person ever convicted in connection with the case.

    * INDEPTH: Air India

Ajaib Singh Bagri

Inderjit Singh Reyat, called "an unmitigated liar" by a judge, is still the only person tried and convicted in connection with the deaths of 329 people on an Air India flight in 1985, as well as the deaths of two baggage handlers in Tokyo. He has always refused to name his co-conspirators and has always claimed that he really feels for the victims.

"In my mind, I never, ever hurt anyone, never will," Reyat said in a 1998 interview.

"You know, I'm scared to kill a fly. How can I take people's life, innocent people? Those people that die on the plane, they [were] related to me, as well. They [were] like my family, I really felt for them."

But Satnam Reyat, who refused to testify at the trial after receiving threats so serious that, at one point, the RCMP had to remove her from her home and take her to a secret location, has named Bagri and Malik as co-conspirators.

Her story emerges from hitherto secret documents filed at Vancouver's courthouse by the RCMP in a bid to question Satnam Reyat in an investigative hearing under Canada's new anti-terrorism law.

.The documents, only unsealed after last Wednesday's verdict, include a sworn affidavit by RCMP Sgt. Daniel Bond that lays out some startling revelations that were never heard in court 

Bond's affidavit says Satnam Reyat knows the inside story because, he says, she told a friend that both Malik and Bagri were involved in the bombing. The RCMP quote Mrs. Reyat as saying it was Bagri and the late Talwinder Singh Parmar - the ringleader of the plot - who recruited her husband.

She's also quoted as saying Reyat "promised ... that he would do the project and wouldn't talk about it" and that Reyat made that promise at a meeting attended by Malik.

Finally, Bond says, Mrs. Reyat received repeated threats, called the RCMP for protection and refused to testify at the trial.

Susheel Gupta, who lost his mother on Air India Flight 182, says the "affidavit shows the RCMP had more evidence, but it never got to the judge because of intimidation."

Some of the information in the RCMP's affidavit comes from wiretaps, some from the RCMP itself and some from what Satnam Reyat said to her friend, who is the unidentified 'Mrs. X' who testified that Malik confessed his involvement in the bombing to her.
Ripudaman Singh Malik

'Mrs. X' was not asked about hearsay, or what she heard from Mrs. Reyat, so the judge never heard it. What he did hear, though, was that Mrs. Reyat received generous financial support of over $100,000 from Malik.

Mrs. Reyat lived rent-free at the Malik's Khalsa Primary School in Surrey. She also received free schooling for her four children, as well as free legal advice , plus cash and cheques from Malik.

The Crown called that "hush money." The judge disagreed, but the families of the victims had no doubts.

However, it makes little difference whether Satnam Reyat refused to testify because of money or threats. The RCMP say they are considering pressing on with investigative hearings under the Anti-terrorism Act in the hope of getting new evidence, and she might not be the only one called.

But the verdict is in and the judge never heard the story that might have been told by the bombmaker's wife.

Copyright ©2005 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved


----------



## Infanteer (23 Mar 2005)

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?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Mar 2005)

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.......


----------



## Gunner (24 Mar 2005)

What is the quote??  Better a 100 guilty men go free rather than 1 innocent go to jail...


----------



## Infanteer (24 Mar 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> What is the quote??   Better a 100 guilty men go free rather than 1 innocent go to jail...



I guess that is some sort of utilitarian debate - is it better to have 100 victims (of crimes not avenged) then 1 victim (a false accusation)?  

With the system we have now, people still go to jail unjustly (Guy-Paul Morin, etc, etc) and yet we allow procedure to let people walk around when the evidence of their guilt is in plain view.


----------



## dutchie (24 Mar 2005)

I think what really bothers people in cases like this is when the obviously guilty are freed in order to maintain principles of fair justice, and not because of a lack of practical proof of guilt. 

I think most agree that these guys were probably guilty, along with Parmar and Reyat, but were freed because to convict them would contravene some important principles of justice. 

What's more important? Does the number of people killed, or the fact that until 9/11 this was the worst act of air terrorism in history mitigate the importance of maintaining those principles? Or should we maintian them no matter what?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Mar 2005)

Quote,
I think most agree that these guys were probably guilty, along with Parmar and Reyat, but were freed because to convict them would contravene some important principles of justice. 

What's more important? Does the number of people killed, or the fact that until 9/11 this was the worst act of air terrorism in history mitigate the importance of maintaining those principles? Or should we maintian them no matter what?

....you really need to see exactly how much evidence is not allowed at most trials, it is disturbing. The principles you speak of are fair as written but have been contaminated by years of rulings, that then set precedences, that then become the principles, that then get contaminated by years of rulings, etc, etc, etc,....untill most evidence is tossed long before the trial even starts,.....money talks and guess which side the money is to be made on?


----------



## 57Chevy (7 Jan 2011)

I'm thinking this is the right place for some closure.
                      ________________________________________________________
   Air India bomb-maker gets 9 years for perjury
article link

VANCOUVER — Convicted killer Inderjit Singh Reyat — the only person ever found guilty for his role in the Air India bombings — was sentenced Friday to nine years in prison for lying at the trial of two others who had been accused in the attack, which killed 331 people.

Reyat was convicted in September of one count of perjury for lying throughout his testimony at the 2003 terrorism trial of Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagrim, who were ultimately acquitted of murder in the 1985 bombings.

The nine-year sentence is believed to be the longest yet handed down for perjury in Canada.

Reyat has spent much of the past 20 years in jail for his involvement in the attacks.

He was convicted in 1991 of manslaughter for building a suitcase bomb that exploded at Tokyo's Narita Airport. It killed two baggage handlers who were attempting to load it onto an Air India flight. He received a 10-year sentence.

Reyat was then charged with murder in 2001 for his role in the Air India bombing, which killed 329, many of whom were Canadian.

He struck a plea bargain for a five-year sentence and another manslaughter conviction, which included a provision he testify truthfully at the Air India trial of two others.

But in September 2010, a B.C. Supreme Court found Reyat guilty of lying on the stand. The Crown charged he had deliberately misled the Air India trial 19 times, and thus had voided his plea agreement.

At a court hearing in November, Reyat, through his lawyer, expressed regret for the suffering of everyone "who lost loved ones as a result of the Air India and Narita tragedies," but failed to apologize for his subsequent lies.

                         (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## GR66 (15 Jul 2022)

BBC is reporting that Rapudiman Singh Malik - one of the two men acquitted of the 1985 Air India bombing has been killed in a targeted shooting in Surrey, BC.






> Man acquitted of bombing 1985 Air India flight shot dead in Canada





> Published
> 7 hours ago
> 
> Share
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Jul 2022)

GR66 said:


> BBC is reporting that Rapudiman Singh Malik - one of the two men acquitted of the 1985 Air India bombing has been killed in a targeted shooting in Surrey, BC.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What goes around….


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jul 2022)

A lot of people have a motive in this case.


----------



## RangerRay (15 Jul 2022)

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


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Jul 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> 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 (15 Jul 2022)

RangerRay said:


> 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 (15 Jul 2022)

Colour me unsurprised.


----------



## CBH99 (16 Jul 2022)

Infanteer said:


> 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.


Bruce Monkhouse said:


> 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 (16 Jul 2022)

CBH99 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (16 Jul 2022)

CBH99 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (16 Jul 2022)

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


----------



## brihard (16 Jul 2022)

Infanteer said:


> 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 (16 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## brihard (16 Jul 2022)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> 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 (16 Jul 2022)

Or just have open custody for minor sh!t.


----------



## Ostrozac (16 Jul 2022)

RangerRay said:


> 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 (16 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (16 Jul 2022)

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 (16 Jul 2022)

dapaterson said:


> 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 (16 Jul 2022)

Retired AF Guy said:


> 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 (17 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> 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 (17 Jul 2022)

dapaterson said:


> 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…


----------



## CBH99 (17 Jul 2022)

Retired AF Guy said:


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


I’m here with you Retired AF Guy - I had the perception that was why her bail was revoked also.  

Mind filling us in?

 (I’m 98% sure I was under that impression because of comments the crown had made - but I read them in the MSM, so I realize it was more likely some partial comments.)


----------



## brihard (17 Jul 2022)

Retired AF Guy said:


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


All good. While the alleged breach happened at that event, the substance of the breach was violating a strict ‘no contact’ order with one of the other planners/organizers, Tom Mazarro. While it was a brief contact, it was a deliberate one. Courts don’t like it when, on camera, you violate a no contact that’s part of your bail. That’s what she was rearrested for, and was what underlied the bail revocation proceeding she just lost.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> All good. While the alleged breach happened at that event, the substance of the breach was violating a strict ‘no contact’ order with one of the other planners/organizers, Tom Mazarro. While it was a brief contact, it was a deliberate one. Courts don’t like it when, on camera, you violate a no contact that’s part of your bail. That’s what she was rearrested for, and was what underlied the bail revocation proceeding she just lost.


Yup. It was a deliberate FU. 

She found the Court’s limit of tolerance.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (17 Jul 2022)

brihard said:


> All good. While the alleged breach happened at that event, the substance of the breach was violating a strict ‘no contact’ order with one of the other planners/organizers, Tom Mazarro. While it was a brief contact, it was a deliberate one. Courts don’t like it when, on camera, you violate a no contact that’s part of your bail. That’s what she was rearrested for, and was what underlied the bail revocation proceeding she just lost.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jul 2022)

Air India posts anyone??
Staff


----------



## Weinie (18 Jul 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Air India posts anyone??
> Staff


Wouldn't fly with them.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Jul 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Air India posts anyone??
> Staff


The cabin service was terrible, but OTOH, the Curry was outstanding?


----------



## Weinie (18 Jul 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> The cabin service was terrible, but OTOH, the Curry was outstanding?


Spent six months with the Brits in Banja Luka. Every day was fucking curry. I vomit at the smell of it. Yet another reason to not fly Air India.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jul 2022)

Sigh.....I hate you all.🤪


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Jul 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Sigh.....I hate you all.🤪


True. On the actual subject- I got nothing. Professional hit job?


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Jul 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> True. On the actual subject- I got nothing. Professional hit job?


Maybe he (should have) had close protection, you know, like Indira Ghandi had….


----------



## brihard (18 Jul 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> True. On the actual subject- I got nothing. Professional hit job?


In Surrey? Who the hell knows. He’s gained wealth and prominence in the many years since and has also continued to able in politics. There could be lots of ways he might have stomped on someone’s toes hard enough to get shot.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jul 2022)

Could just be that someone wanted their "revenge best eaten cold" to be extra tasty.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Could just be that someone wanted their "revenge best eaten cold" to be extra tasty.


I don't know what the victim's business was but I think this is a viable motive.

Cultures have very long memories.....


----------



## Retired AF Guy (27 Jul 2022)

Global News is reporting that two men have been arrested Maliks murder.



> Two men charged with first-degree murder in Ripudaman Singh Malik’s death​
> By Amy Judd  Global News
> 
> Posted July 27, 2022 1:39 pm
> ...



More photos/video/background on Malik at this link .

Interestingly, neither of the alleged shooters have an Asian name which may mean ( and I'm totally speculating here) that they were hired for the killing or the possibility that the killing had nothing to do with Sikh politics?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Jul 2022)

Retired AF Guy said:


> Global News is reporting that two men have been arrested Maliks murder.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They won’t last long in General Population…


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jul 2022)

Retired AF Guy said:


> Global News is reporting that two men have been arrested Maliks murder.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting.

They will spill the beans eventually. There’s more to this than meets the eye 👁 IMO


----------



## Remius (28 Jul 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Interesting.
> 
> They will spill the beans eventually. There’s more to this than meets the eye 👁 IMO


Might have been involved in some unsavoury business with someone.  These two are apparently known to police and seem to be thugs.  Maybe sent to deal with him.


----------

