Wednesday, October 20, 2010

RailGate Reloaded....The Smoking Admissibility Gun


Ian Reid, like a number of Citizen Journalists we correspond with, both online and offline, spent time in the RailGate courtroom while the jury was not present.

At the time, there was a Publication Ban in place with respect to any and all matters that were discussed.

However, now that the trial is over so is the publication ban.


Folks like Mr. Reid are now free to talk about what they saw and heard with their own non-accredited eyes and ears during all those times the jury was out and the lawyers were jawing, mouths agape.

In a post written today, Ian tells us what he thinks really went down based on what he saw and heard way back in June of this year:

"It all started with a question from Michael Bolton – representing David Basi – to (prosecution witness and the Premier's chief-of-staff) Martyn Brown late last June.
Bolton began asking Brown about the relationship between lead RCMP investigator Kevin DeBruyckere and BC Liberal Party Executive Director Kelly Reichart. They are brothers-in-law.
Immediately Special Prosecutor Bill Berardino jumped up to object to Bolton’s questioning. The jury was excused and the longest legal wrangling delay in the trial began. With the jury excused the wrangling was under publication ban. What happened that last week of June in Courtroom 54 has never been reported......"
Essentially, in the legal wrangling that followed, Mr. Reid, tells us that the Special Prosecutor argued vehemently, behind closed doors with the jury absent, that a pre-trial agreement made it impossible for the defense to argue matters of 'investigative bias'.

Despite all this wrangling from prosecutor Berardino, when the jury came back into the courtroom a week later, this is what happened:
".....Michael Bolton got up and asked Martyn Brown about Kelly Reichart and Kevin de Bruyckere. The defence won the closed door argument about admissibility. The Special Prosecutor lost....."

And the kicker to all that?

Well, in Ian's opinion it meant the following:

"...That meant the way was clear for the defence to question Gary Collins, even Gordon Campbell amongst others, about these issues. The way was clear to ask about Reichart and deBruyckere about the RCMP steering the investigation away from Gary Collins. More importantly, the way was clear to introduce evidence supporting the claim....."

And we, like the previous Railgate judge Elizabeth Bennett, know that evidence is out there.

And we also know that, according Mdme Justice Bennett's previous pre-trial rulings that at least some of it went straight to the matter of innocence at stake.

Which means that it mattered.

Is it any wonder that Mr. Collins could not be allowed to testify, under oath, with a wide-open cross examination based on evidence such as the transcripts of wiretaps from the RCMP?

Do yourself a favour - Go and read Ian's post in its entirety, and then think about how it is all something that you should be reading in the Vancouver Sun and The Province.


Because their reporters were in the room when the jury was absent too.

And they, like the Citizen Journalists that they would not accredit when the trial began, are also no longer subject to the Publication Ban.

'Nuff said?



Norm Farrell said...

Strangely, on the Globe and Mail's Q&A today, we were told that nothing much happened while the jury was out of the room.

More of that, "Move along now, nothing to see here." Or, as Baldrey said, "Now that the trial has ended, the story will fade from public memory."

Thanks to Ian Reid for making sense out of something the others chose not to report.

RossK said...


In my most humble opinion Mr. Baldrey has been doing his best to make the story fade from public memory for at least five years.


Anonymous said...

The Vancouver Sun's Jonathan Fowlie has reported that the B.C. government negotiated with Basi, Virk before waiving legal fees

[Deputy attorney-general David] Loukidelis said that by Oct. 8, he and deputy minister of finance, Graham Whitmarsh "decided to release Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk from their liability to repay."

I wonder if this is the same Graham Whitmarsh who neglected to tell anybody that the super smart BC Liberal's management of the BC economy went BILLIONS into the tank just before the last election?

RossK said...


Why yes, I believe it is....



By Oct 8th they had already decided on the 'release'

Well....Alrighty then....That backs things up a little doesn't it?

Which only further strengthens Mr. Reid's thesis (ie. that they knew they had to get an agreement before Mr. Collins got to the stand).


North Van's Grumps said...

When is the newspaper people going to come out with the Witness list or is it still a state secret:

"Campbell was not on the list of 40 witnesses presented by the prosecution during the jury-selection process."

Vaughn Palmer May 26th

RossK said...


Personally, I am of the opinioin that there are a number of good folks in the proMedia sphere who are doing their very best to dig a rabbit hole so deep that that the list will be buried forever.


Anonymous said...

SO first we are told:

"Mike de Jong is flatly denying a report that Dave Basi and Bobby Virk were made to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

He says "..absolutely not--there is no such provision"."

and then we are told:

"The Loukidelis statement also notes Basi and Virk have been released from a condition requiring them not to discuss the financial aspects of their settlement."

SO which one is lying? They can't even get their stories straight.


BC Mary said...


Those upstart "accredited" journalists really had that back-hander coming to them -- ever since they used their exclusive embedded position within BC Supreme Court to deny formal accreditation to Robin Mathews (so he could use a recording device to properly hear the proceedings).

And the upstarts were so smug about it.

I've often wondered if they fully understand who Robin Mathews is.

Really, you've done some great dot-connecting here and it's much appreciated. It's as if the BC RAIL POLITICAL CORRUPTION TRIAL as well as the PUBLIC INQUIRY are up and running of their own momentum.


Then somebody on another site said a wonderful thing, i.e., why mess around with a Public Inquiry when we could simply NATIONALIZE our old railroad and put it back together again, serving the people?

kootcoot said...

"why mess around with a Public Inquiry when we could simply NATIONALIZE our old railroad and put it back together again, serving the people?"

Mary, you are so quaint. As if we have ANY politicians that buy into the discarded if ever true idea that government exists to serve the people!