Pubdate: Sat, 31 Mar 2007
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Copyright: 2007, The Globe and Mail Company
Contact:  http://www.globeandmail.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/168
Website: http://www.globeandmail.ca/
Author: Greg McArthur

PROTECTED WITNESSES WHO KILL UNMASKED IN U.S.

Victims Families' Have Right To Know, Founder Of American Program Says

The Canadian law that bans anyone from revealing who was murdered by a
protected RCMP witness is so rare that the founder of the U.S. witness
protection program says he has never heard of such an extreme measure.

Gerald Shur, a retired U.S. Justice Department lawyer whose program
became the model for countries around the world, commented yesterday
on a recent Globe and Mail-Ottawa Citizen investigation about Richard
Young, a paid RCMP agent, code-named Agent E8060.

Mr. Young manufactured evidence for investigators and entered the
witness protection program only to kill someone when he was under a
new identity. Canada's witness protection law prohibits anyone from
revealing who he became or who he killed.

The ban is so absolute that even family members of the deceased,
cabinet ministers and Canadian lawmakers are forbidden from knowing
the truth about his past.

Mr. Shur, who was responsible for about 6,500 protectees, said: "I
can't recall an instance where there was effort to keep it secret from
the victim's families.

"I think it gives them closure. I think they have a right to object
that such a person has been placed in the program and a right to
pursue certain civil remedies that may be available to them."

Mr. Shur said a small number of protected witnesses in his charge went
on to commit murder, but on each occasion they had their past revealed
publicly.

"They commit a serious criminal offence, the chances are that their
real identity will be disclosed," he said. "They may be charged under
their new name, but ultimately, if they're convicted, then chances are
it will be disclosed through the court process."

The RCMP this week also conceded that it's understandable that family
members of victims want answers.

"For the people that are impacted directly, absolutely it's an issue,"
RCMP Chief Superintendent Derek Ogden said when asked how he would
react if he was told he wasn't allowed to know the past of someone who
harmed one of his relatives.

However, to ensure the safety of people who speak out against
mobsters, bikers and other organized criminals, blanket protection is
necessary -- regardless of any new crimes they commit or how their
victims feel about being denied the truth, the Mountie said.

"It's those exceptions [any disclosure] that would bring the program
down and those exceptions would allow people to lose confidence in the
program," said Chief Supt. Ogden, who oversees all drug and organized
crime investigations in Canada.

But the U.S. program hasn't fallen apart, Mr. Shur said, when
revelations about identity are made. If a protectee is convicted of a
serious crime and their identity made public, they serve their jail
sentence in protected custody. Plus, he said, all protectees
understand that if they commit serious crime, the Justice Department
can do little to prevent their past from creeping out.

Mr. Shur described having to personally phone the families of people
who had been hurt by protected witnesses, and having them lash out at
him when he explained that their assailant wasn't really who he said
he was.

"I can understand [Chief Supt. Ogden's] concern, but our experience
has shown that when the name has been disclosed there has not been any
retribution," he said.

In fact, sometimes in the U.S., the disclosure of a protectee's
identity has resulted in significant legal reforms.

In 1978, a protectee named Marion Pruett went on an eight-month crime
rampage and murdered five people. His name at the time was Charles
"Sonny" Pearson -- and he later admitted to providing false evidence
before he was admitted to the program.

Congressional hearings were launched into the murders and the result
was a requirement that protectees be psychologically assessed before
they enter their new life, Mr. Shur said.

In Canada, the Commons public safety committee launched its own
inquiry into the program this week and is due to be briefed by the
RCMP and Justice officials on April 19. Public Safety Minister,
Stockwell Day, has asked for a briefing on the case, but last night,
the RCMP said the minister cannot lawfully be told the entire story.

The only way Canadians and decision makers will legally be able to
speak about the case is if Acting RCMP Commissioner Bev Busson steps
in and makes an exemption.

Under the law, Ms. Busson can expose him if she deems that it is in
"the public interest" and necessary to investigate, or prevent, a
serious offence.

There is only one other person that has the power to make the
information public: Mr. Young, or whatever name he now goes by.

Under the act, he can consent to the disclosure. Also, if he spoke
about his protected status in such a way that he made it obvious, Ms.
Busson can release the information.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek