The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Cool BES 10- PORT PERRY STAR - Tuesday, April 15, 1997 "Scugog's Community Newspaper of Choice" The Verdict: | Port Perry Star reporter 'John B. McClelland followed the lengthy McArthur trial from start to finish and this article expresses his his final | thoughts on the proceedings: i ele ver since the jury handed down its decision April 3 in the trial ofthe McArthur brothers, many Port Perry people have asked me if] agree with the findings that Mitchiel is guilty, while Angus walks away a free man. - As one who was in court virtually every day and heard almost every word of testi- mony from over 70 witnesses at this lengthy and complex trial, I can say that justice was served. In the Canadian system the burden of proof rests totally with the prosecution. An accused person need not lift a finger to prove his innocence; the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Beyond reasonable doubt are the key words. The case against Angus McArthur did not achieve this, and the jury was cor- rect in finding him not guilty of charges which could have put him in prison for a good part of the rest of his life. _ Yes, there was suspicion of guilt in the evidence presented by the Crown. But it was not overwhelming; it did not reach the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence against Mitchiel "Micky" McArthur was far more compelling: DNA on a balaclava matched his. His car was in Port Perry the night of the robbery and shootings; spotted making a hasty U-turn near a police roadblock on Simcoe Street; samples of glass found in his car were "mi- croscopically similar" to glass from the patio door of a home the robbers broke into; and three different eyewitnesses identified him as being in Port Perry that night. They positively identified Mitchiel in court, but were unable to do the same with Angus. Defense lawyers attempted to discredit eyewitness accounts, but the jury was swayed. On e Of the key planks in the Crown's case against Angus was the testi- mony of a man who had been in Whitby jail with him last summer. This man, whose identity was protected by the court, testified that Angus had told him about planning for the robbery. The jury members obviously decided not to believe this witness. And I don't blame them. He had absolutely no credibility. He was too glib, too smart alecky, too sure of himself. And he had every reason to fabri- cate: He badly wanted out of jail, and he had been pestering police to help him put his estranged wife in jail on a perjury charge. Very messy. He was in the slam- mer for beating up his 54-year old father- in-law. After the trial Mr. Zaduk condemned the use of a jailhouse informant, invoking the wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin. On the other hand, the evidence given by the eyewitnesses against Mitchiel McArthur was highly credible. It was con- sistent, accurate and honest. And it stood up under very rigid cross examination by two highly skilled defense lawyers. ~ talking tohim at Mitchiel McArthur's lawyer, Cindy Wasser, used as his defense a "conspiracy" by Durham Police to frame her client. I don't buy that theory for one minute, and the jury didn't either. To think that 30 or 40 police officers could concoct a conspiracy to tamper with and plant evidence in this case is prepost- erous. It would have required the com- pliance of dozens of civilian witnesses, the OPP identification branch in Toronto, and senior examiners at the Forensic Sciences Centre. Ms. Wasser offered no evidence of a conspiracy at all. It was just a theory, and it didn't hold water with the jury. Surely, if the police were to tamper with evidence to convict Micky, they could have done the same against Angus. I know aman's personality or lot in life is no indi- cation of innocence or guilt of a serious crime, but in hearing Angus on the stand in his own defense and anews "scrum" after the verdicts camedown, | could not help but think hereis aman to be pitied, not feared. AGrade9 drop-out, heavy drinker and pot smoker, father of a six-year-old son, he had been over backwards for both accused to get an absolutely fair trial. Rightly so. He banned publication of photos of Angus and Micky coming into court in cuffs and shackles; there was a ban on reporting of prior criminal records; a ban on any refer- ence in reporting on Micky's infamous book; even a ban on reporting the fact that court security during the trial was heavy - - four very muscular, armed Durham cops in bullet proof vests with ear phones sat in court at all times; several other officers werein the hallway just astone's throw away. All court visitors every day, includ- ing the media, were frisked, searched and waved with a metal detector. Micky is a bird of a different feather. He did not take the stand in his own Crown failed to prove Angus McArthur was 'guilty beyond a doubt' description. Later that afternoon, Micky and Angus were apprehended driving their mom's car. No charges were ever laid over this Kingston incident. Angus denied he was there. Micky made a deal with the OPP to get the rifle "off the street" and also to give police info on bank heists in Detroit and Ottawa, information that didn't pan out. Arifle was turned over to police, sent in a box by bus from Toronto to Angus, who turned it over to a lawyer who gave it to police. Therifle, a Colt AR 15, was similar to the one used in the Port Perry robbery, but not the same. Micky was on parole at the time of the Kingston incident. A condition of his par- ole was a ban on firearms and ammuni- tion. He could have gone back to prison for breaking this con- dition had he been convicted. A Kingston OPP officer testified no charges were laid because he didn't think there was enough evidence to geta conviction. Ha ve we heard the last of the McArthur broth- ers? Not likely. Micky will be back in court May 7 for the start of his sentencing hear- ing. He is also facing very seri- ous criminal charges in other jurisdictions. His lawyer said there could be an appeal of his convictions for the Port Perry case, and Angus hinted he may be planning some kind of legal action, presumably for wrong- ful arrest. Like most residents of Port Perry, the events of Oct. 20, 1994 came as an utter shock to me. The violence of five people wounded by gunfire, bank staffterrorized by two gun- wielding robbers -- one in numerous : Cs minor scrapes screaming obscenities and with the law by threatening to shoot people thetimehewas Bb = after he had deliberately shot charged with the Ha the manager above the left Port Perry DSTEN/ PORT PERAY STAR knee to force him to open the crimes more than Ambulance attendants rush a Durham Regional Police officer, treasury. gunned down by fleeing bank robbers on Oct. 20, 1994 to ambulance. This kind of stuff doesn't two years ago. He struck me as a weak follower, content with a jug of beer on the table and a couple of joints in his jeans pockets, knowing he would not have to get up in the morning to go to work. The only work he's ever had has been odd jobs at construction or deliv- ering pizza. He turned 31 last month. J wa tched. eyes brim with tears as the heavily armed police guards unlocked his leg shackles in the courtroom after the not guilty verdict, and later heard him talk outside the room about "getting drunk on Jack Daniels," or "goin'down to Jamaica to smoke some of that pot," and I felt a sense of sadness. Not that he had just spent the last 30 months in the slammer for crimes on which he was found not guilty by a jury of six men and six women; but sadness at the thought of any human life gone wasted. I had the feeling this was a troubled individual long before the evening of Oct. 20, 1994 at the Bank of Montreal in Port Perry. Justice Harry LaForme, after Angus was found not guilty and had been freed of the leg shackles, looked down from the bench and said but three words: "Angus, good luck." Throughout the trial, this judge bent defense. Only once, during the long trial did I hear him speak. "You tell the truth," he shouted out from the prisoner's box when an OPP officer was giving evidence. I saw not a flicker of emotion when the jury foreman answered 'Guilty' to the 17 indictments against him. He stared at the jury. He had a half smile, a smirk, really, on his face as was cuffed to be led out of court. Walking by a group of police officers in the courtroom, including Det. Paul Mooy, one cf those shot that night, Micky is said to have raised both hands to ges- ture A000 with his forefingers. 0 od portion of this A rial was taken up by the Kingston. incident. Here is what hap- pened: On the afternoon of Sunday, Aug. 28, some seven weeks prior to the Port Perry robbery, a man heard rapid fire rifle shots near his rural home outside Kingston. He went to investigate and saw two men come out of the bush and get into ared Camaro. One carried a rifle. The man followed them in his van into the city, but the Camaro was too fast and once took evasive action by jumping a boulevard near the 401 highway. The man called police on his cell phone with a happen in this town -- it hap- pens in the big city or in some dusty, hard- scrabble back-water where everyone owns a gun, and shoot-outs on the street are not so very rare. Like all residents of Port Perry, am glad those horrible incidents on that October night are behind us. Ateenager, same ageas my own son, told me he was on the sidewalk collecting grocery carts when the shoot-out started and could "feel" bullets whooshing just above his head. My son, who is several inches taller, was not working at the grocery store that night. But he could have been. Yes, I would have liked to see a double conviction to wrap things up neat and tidy, with no lingering questions. But our system of justice has to work above the emotions of any individual or group of people, or it would not work at all. I believe justice was served in that court room over the last three months, and on April 3 when the jury handed down its decisions. Aman was convicted on the evidence; another walked away free because there was not enough evidence to implicate him beyond reasonable doubt. To have to live under any other system is unthinkable. RE a. aaa a