Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

Is Kyle Unger’s case just a legal lottery?

  • Print

Kyle Unger is suing the cops and some lawyers for $14 million. That's a lot of dough. However, workplace indemnification means it will be the taxpayers footing any payday, so the province shouldn't be too quick to settle with our money.

At least not yet.

Two decades ago, Brigitte Grenier, a blameless girl with an intelligent smile, was killed. Unger was one of two men charged in connection with the slaying.

As the case snaked its way through the legal system, the second man committed suicide. Unger was convicted and went to prison. It was several years before a file analysis by several defence-minded federal attorneys identified some shortcomings and recommended that Canada's justice minister step in.

There was a new trial, and when the Crown called no evidence, Unger was freed forever.

Some reports describe Unger as an innocent man, cleared by DNA, in an explanation that is as simplistic as it is overstated. The now-discredited hair evidence that once offered a possible link between Unger and the murder was a piece of the evidentiary pie and could never, ever have been the foundation for conviction. In fact, trial transcripts are clear, with an RCMP scientist stating that the hair was "not a positive means of identification."

The biggest beef, however, comes from the RCMP's embarking on a "Mr. Big" project. "Mr. Big" was a sting operation that saw Unger confessing to Brigitte's murder.

Unger's camp says it was a trick. (Undercover operations naturally involve trickery, and Mr. Justice Benjamin Hewak ruled that the police actions were proper and did not run contrary to public policy.)

Most of us, me included, don't have Clue No. 1 about this case, but I have spoken to the RCMP, and privately it's been said that officers were exceedingly frustrated by the provincial Justice department's decision to toss in the towel.

I'm told the evidence remains strong, even with now-debunked forensic matters. Still, time has a way of chipping away at even the most solid cases, and after 20 years, any re-prosecution is difficult. Maybe it's some sour grapes coming from the Mounties. Maybe not. Either way, the case is finished.

Unger is claiming full innocence and demanding big compensation. Meanwhile, the red flags are being hoisted, especially given that former NDP justice minister Dave Chomiak says that while Unger is not guilty, it's not the same thing as being innocent of Brigitte's murder.

Chomiak gets what many don't -- that there's a huge difference between wrongly convicted and innocent. One doesn't necessarily follow the other. We should wonder what Chomiak knows when he's quoted saying that the "conclusion is not clear or clean-cut," adding that Unger doesn't deserve compensation.

More information is in order if government is considering a taxpayer-funded deal.

Unfortunately, the only way to get the scoop would be an expensive legal process, complete with batteries of lawyers, a retired judge playing adjudicator, people seeking standing (and their lawyers), clerks and recorders.

There have been reported inaccuracies in Unger's confession, things that were plain wrong as he spilled his guts while seeking the favour of "Mr. Big."

That's hardly newsworthy. In the circumstances of frenzied murder against a backdrop of an outdoor 1990s concert, there might be a legitimate fear of cooked evidence if everything had lined up nice and tidy.

With $14 million on the table, though, the right thing is to publicly offer a juxtaposition of what he got wrong against what he got right, especially if he spilled information that only the real killer would know. Is there such evidence?

Unger has won his freedom, and that's the right thing if he's been wrongly convicted. But because wrongly convicted and innocent can be two entirely different entities, Unger may not deserve to become an instant multimillionaire.

Independent of a justice minister's harboured concerns, it must be Unger's job to prove his case is worth millions. And he can only do that by showing us all why he is innocent and dispelling any notion that he won more than a technical legal lottery.

All the evidence, not just the stuff that makes the case appear weak (most cases have weaknesses), should be put to an adjudicator and an informed panel who could be shepherded through the material by lawyers who have a genuine enthusiasm for the truth.

With all the cards on the table -- that's key and where so many inquiries of this nature fall off the tracks -- the panel could decide what, if any, award should be made.

If Unger is truly innocent, he deserves compensation for all the time he spent behind bars. If doubt remains, we should have the right to not pay.

 

Robert Marshall is a retired Winnipeg police detective

rm112800@hotmail.com

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition October 8, 2011 J6

Fact Check

Fact Check

Have you found an error, or know of something we’ve missed in one of our stories?
Please use the form below and let us know.

* Required
  • Please post the headline of the story or the title of the video with the error.

  • Please post exactly what was wrong with the story.

  • Please indicate your source for the correct information.

  • Yes

    No

  • This will only be used to contact you if we have a question about your submission, it will not be used to identify you or be published.

  • Cancel

Having problems with the form?

Contact Us Directly
  • Print

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscribers only. why?

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?

The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.

letters

Make text: Larger | Smaller

LATEST VIDEO

Fire destroys one St. Norbert home, damages another

View more like this

Photo Store Gallery

  • Hay bales sit under a rainbow just west of Winnipeg Saturday, September 3, 2011.(John Woods/Winnipeg Free Press)
  • A gaggle of Canada geese goslings at Woodsworth Park in Winnipeg Monday- See Project Honk Day 05- May 07, 2012   (JOE BRYKSA / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS)

View More Gallery Photos

Poll

Should the federal government force band chiefs and councillors to disclose their salary information?

View Results

View Related Story

Ads by Google