As you read, you will see justice gone awry. Madam Justice Susan Griffin gives an individual just convicted in her courtroom of homicide, Wyatt Prince, more respect than the citizen who risked his life to bring that criminal to justice.
Arrogance led the judge where she had no legal right to go
I believe this was a result of illogic and arrogance supported by a prejudice born of intolerance for relationship types that are antithetical to the belief system of Justice Susan Griffin. This resulted in an abandonment of her duties. As well she misapplied the law and showed a lack of comprehension of my role in the solving of this murder. This led to a seemingly intentional misunderstanding of the evidence, and a sentence for Wyatt Prince that was too lenient for his crimes. You are about to go inside the murder trial of Wyatt Evan Prince.
Sir Walter Scott: “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”
A judge can be limited by law as to what he/she is allowed to try to understand about a jury’s thinking process, but apparently not Justice Susan Griffin. She thinks she is above the law that she is called to administer
To start with, please understand that when deciding a sentence and speaking about the proceeding that led to that sentence, a judge is instructed by law, “When the factual implications of the jury’s verdict are ambiguous, the sentencing judge should not attempt to follow the logical processes of the jury...”
Thus, if there is any ambiguity as to what a jury might have thought to reach its verdict, a judge, in passing a sentence, is restricted because of that ambiguity from making any attempt to understand the jury’s thinking. That limitation was in place regarding my testimony in the murder trial of Wyatt Prince unless the jury’s verdict was NOT in any manner ambiguous, but instead, pointed unequivocally to the jury believing or disbelieving my testimony.
Bearing the foregoing in mind
With that in mind, subsequent to the jury having found Wyatt Prince guilty of manslaughter, instead of the greater charge of murder, if Madam Justice wanted to question my honesty as it was viewed by the jury, she was required by law, to build a platform from which to do so. Her problem was that there would have been no plank available to Madam Justice with which to build that platform unless the jury’s verdict was consistent “only” with it having rejected my testimony.
So Madam Justice gave Wyatt Prince his first break and built a platform unsupported by law or by logic
Accordingly, Madam Justice stated, “The jury’s return of a verdict of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter is consistent with the jury rejecting Mr. Hannon’s evidence as to what precisely Mr. Prince said to him after the death of Mr. Paul Rouxel. If rejection of his evidence is only [my underline] consistent with a verdict of not guilty of murder, then I too must not accept Mr. Hannon’s evidence.” She then proceeded to call into question my motivation and the honesty of my testimony.
Chief Justice Warren Burger: “Ours is a sick profession. [a profession marked by] incompetence, lack of training, misconduct, and bad manners. Ineptness, bungling, malpractice, and bad ethics can be observed in court houses all over this country every day.”
Madam Justice even admitted there was ambiguity
The problems for Madam Justice with her analysis is that there are many reasons why the jury’s decision for a “manslaughter verdict” over an “intentional murder verdict” pointed neither to a disbelief of my testimony, nor a belief therein. In other words, there existed ambiguity.
In fact, one of Madam Justice’s own statements from her Oral Reasons for Sentence averred that ambiguity when she stated, “Secondly, if I accept the Crown submissions as to the logic of the jury result, it is at best ambiguous [my underline] as to whether or not the jury rejected or accepted Mr. Hannon’s evidence regarding the particular statement purportedly made by Mr. Prince”.
Plato: “Knowledge without justice ought to be called cunning rather than wisdom”
So, first Justice Susan Griffin says that the jury rejected my testimony. Then she says it is not clear whether it accepted my testimony or rejected it. She cannot have it both ways. Justice Susan Griffin was talking out of both sides of her mouth.
Madam Justice’s self-serving oratory exposed
Further, the self-serving nature of Madam Justice’s erroneous opinions become clear when you study the following logic: I testified that Wyatt Prince had told me that he, Prince, had strangled Paul Rouxel to shut him the fu*k up, or words to that effect. I did NOT testify as to whether or not Wyatt Prince shutting Paul up meant just rendering Paul unconscious, thus shutting him up temporarily, or actually killing Paul, thus shutting him up permanently.
I did testify to the fact that it was my belief that Prince meant to kill Paul and that Wyatt Prince had told me that Paul should have known he was going to die when he chose to resist Wyatt Prince. However, my testimony, while highly suggestive of an intention by Wyatt Prince to kill, is not a definitive statement as to Prince’s intention at the moment he was strangling Paul. After all, neither Justice Susan Griffin, nor I, have the ability to read people’s minds. [Although, it is clear from Justice Susan Griffin’s comments that she believed she could read the mind of every juror.]
Wyatt Prince was a braggart
A further point on Prince’s intent is that I had testified that Prince was “braggadocios” about having killed Paul. Therefore, the jury could have concluded that Wyatt Prince made the statement he made to me as puffery in an attempt to appear mean and tough and that it was not a true statement of his intent.
Therein lay two ambiguities as as to what Prince’s actual intentions were at the moment he was strangling Paul, ambiguities that carry with them no implication about whether or not the jury believed my testimony.
Those ambiguities were questions which the jury needed to answer for itself. Justice Susan Griffin could have no clue as to the jury’s thinking on those ambiguities, or even if they arose during the deliberation process or in the mind of any juror.
The jury could have concluded
Accordingly, the jury could have concluded from my testimony that Wyatt Prince may have strangled Paul with the intention of rendering Paul unconscious, thus shutting him up as far as Paul’s screaming at that moment went, and that Wyatt Prince accidentally went to far. Or it could have concluded that Wyatt Prince strangled Paul to shut Paul up permanently. It was the jury’s decision to make and either decision by the jury would have been consistent with it having believed my testimony.
Madam Justice lied
That means that the jury could have believed every word I spoke and still found that Wyatt Prince did not intend to murder Paul, thereby finding him guilty of manslaughter instead of murder. Accordingly, Madam Justice was NOT required to reject my evidence, and in fact, was not even allowed to attempt to follow the jury’s reasoning in reaching its verdict because the jury’s verdict was NOT consistent “only” with a rejection of my evidence, but could have been consistent with it accepting my testimony and merely interpreting Prince’s words to mean one thing rather than another.
Furthermore, none of the above takes into account the fact that the coroner could not absolutely fix the cause of death
Justice Susan Griffin used her false logic to grant herself a permission that was forbidden by law
Madam Justice simply used false logic concerning what the jury’s verdict meant in regard to my testimony to grant herself a permission that did not exist for her in the law when properly applied, the permission to reject my testimony by stating that the jury absolutely did not believe me, and that therefore, she was also forbidden to believe me.
Using that false permission, Madam Justice then called into question my integrity and my motives in the Wyatt Prince trial and began a series of insults about my credibility, insults which you will soon understand do not even come close to passing any test of logic.
Justice Susan Griffin went even further though
Looking further at Madam Justice’s statements regarding the jury rejecting my testimony, she did NOT limit the jury’s alleged rejection of my testimony to what she had referred to as the “particular statement” [the statement which could have been interpreted as specifying Prince’s intent in strangling Mr. Rouxel]. Instead, she broadened the scope of what testimony of mine the jury supposedly rejected by stating, “is consistent with the jury rejecting Mr. Hannon’s evidence as to what precisely Mr. Prince said to him after the death of Mr Rouxel [my underline]”.
Thus, Madam Justice granted herself permission to reject almost my entire testimony as the phraseology she used clearly refers to everything I said “after the death of Mr. Rouxel”.
Please remember that I was in court to talk about statements that Wyatt Prince had made to me after the murder, not prior to it. So, first Madam Justice gave herself permission to vilify me by ignoring the word “only”, then she painted the broadest possible guidelines as to exactly what part of my testimony she had permission to call lies. Having sat on the bench for many years, Madam Justice is a very savvy and cunning woman and understood exactly what she was doing.
Plato: “Knowledge without justice ought to be called cunning rather than wisdom”
How then does Justice Susan Griffin explain away the following facts, and how is it possible that the jury, considering those following facts, disbelieved everything I had stated that Wyatt Prince had said to me “after the death of Mr. Rouxel”?
Here is testimony given by me about facts surrounding the crime as they were relayed to me by Wyatt Prince and as I testified to in court, all testimony that referred to things that Wyatt Prince had told me “after the death of Mr. Rouxel“. More importantly, these were facts given to the police by me, some within minutes of the murder and others within hours of the murder.
- the death occurred in the View Towers. The death occurred in the View Towers.
- that it was a murder, not an overdose. It turned out it was a murder. (Until I called it in, it was being viewed as a probable overdose.)
- I said Paul was strangled. Paul was strangled.
- I said that Wyatt Prince had deposited Paul’s body in the closet. Paul was found partially in the closet.
- I said it was a robbery. Despite the fact that Paul had just gotten paid, he was found with no money and it was established in court that it was a robbery.
- I said that there were two other individuals involved in the robbery, and named them. It came out through other witnesses in court that there were two other individuals and the names I gave proved to be correct.
- I said Wyatt Prince had left Paul’s apartment via the stairwell in order to avoid the cameras in the elevator. The court transcripts show that Wyatt Prince left the floor on which Paul’s apartment was located using the stairwell.
More disrespectful and ludicrous statements by Justice Susan Griffin
Now, please allow me to start the rest of my analysis of Madam Justice’s statements with a comment by Madam Justice that I believe should serve as an “aha” moment to all by revealing what I believe to be a festering anger and bias against me by Madam Justice due to my roommate’s relationship with me (more on that later), and therefore, what I believe to be the very reason why Madam Justice felt compelled to build her false platform in the first place.
I will now show you how Madam Justice used her self-granted permission to continuously attack me, and I will dissect her consistently ludicrous and disrespectful attacks on me by comparing those attacks with simple logic. I will also show you some of her other absurd statements.
Any statements made under the heading, Oral Reasons for Sentence, by definition, are reasons why a particular sentence was decided upon
Please take notice of the fact that by the very title of Madam Justice’s oration, Oral Reasons for Sentence, that she was identifying any comments she made in her oration as reasons why she chose the sentence upon which she decided.
That being understood, if as Madam Justice stated, she was of the opinion that the jury had totally disbelieved my testimony, why in her Oral Reasons For Sentencing did Madam Justice feel it necessary to make any comment(s) whatsoever about my testimony, which according to her had been completely irrelevant to the jury’s decision? Commonsense dictates that if my testimony was not believed by the jury that it was irrelevant to the jury’s decision, and if Madam Justice disbelieved it or was compelled to disbelieve it as she stated, it should have also been irrelevant to Madam Justice’s sentencing decision and should never have arisen in her oral reasons. Therefore, the only reason she could have had to address my testimony was to sully my reputation.
Justice Susan Griffin makes one of the dumbest statements that I have ever heard
Now that you understand Justice Susan Griffin’s motivation for mentioning me in her oral reasons, please examine the following statement. Madam Justice stated, “He [Hannon] seemed unusually motivated to try to have the police focus their investigation on Mr. Prince…” This statement by Madam Justice is undeniably one of the most monumentally inane arguments against my credibility that anyone might imagine.
It is as if Madam Justice sat through the preliminary trial, sat through the actual trial, replayed it all in her memory having transcripts to refer to, and still did not have a clue about what was testified to regarding by the police and by me
Indeed, I was highly motivated to have the police focus on Prince. I don’t know if I would have used the word, “unusually” as did Madam Justice. After all, had you had Prince confess to you on multiple occasions, as he did to me, I’m pretty sure that any of you would have acted as I acted and told the police exactly that which Prince had told you.
Since Prince had stated to me that he killed Paul and that he was alone during that murder because his compatriots had left the apartment prior to it, I had no reason to even consider the idea of suggesting to the police that they look at anybody else as a suspect. In fact, under the law, it would have been “Obstruction of Justice” had I intentionally misled the police by suggesting to them that they look at somebody who I knew did not commit the murder or who I did not believe might have committed the murder.
I was also clear, detailed and forthcoming with the police
When relating to the police exactly what Prince had told me, I also told the police about the two other individuals that Prince had said committed the robbery with him, but who Prince had said had left before the murder. I even named those individuals. From that moment forward, although I don’t know it with certainty because I was not privy to the details of the police investigation, but I feel quite comfortable in stating that the police, of their own volition, probably focused their attentions on Prince as the primary suspect. Why wouldn’t they?
There goes the turnip truck
While I might be just an ole country boy at heart, and while I may have come into town on a truck, it wasn’t recently, I didn’t fall off of that truck, and it wasn’t a turnip truck, so I’m pretty sure that what Madam Justice was stating was that my testimony would have been more credible to her had I violated the law by lying to the police, thereby sending them on a wild goose chase.
The last time I heard such claptrap from an intelligent individual, George Bush was standing on an aircraft carrier in front of a sign that read, “Mission Accomplished.” Later editions of that photo op picture were computer altered to remove the sign. I am delighted that Madam Justice can’t use a similar process to cover her blunders, for they are a well documented part of a public record.
Madam Justice saying that I lacked credibility because my testimony was proven true clearly demonstrates prejudice
If there is any comment by Madam Justice that demonstrates a prejudice against me, it must certainly be her comment that my focus on Prince showed I lacked credibility. Frankly, had it not been for the organized structure of Madam Justice’s arguments against me (further detailed below), she may have seemed more of a blithering blatherskite than a cunning judge intent on assassinating my character.
With the kind of bias, or if not bias, certainly illogic, demonstrated by Madam Justice with that objection to me, I pray that she does not represent the future of justice in Canada because even should you decide to discredit any other argument(s) that I make herein, you cannot ignore the world class idiocy of Justice Susan Griffin’s statement that questions my credibility because I did not mislead the police.
Voltaire: “Prejudice is opinion without judgment.”
I have a hard time believing that a sitting judge could make such a cretinous statement. Then once you factor into your thinking that Madam Justice is an educated individual and then conduct even a cursory analysis of that statement by her, you must, as do I, and rightfully so, question her motivation in raising such a specious objection to my testimony. Therefore, you must also scrutinize everything else Madam Justice had to say about my testimony, and interpret her opinions thereof only after filtering them through the light of what that statement reveals about Madam Justice’s mindset regarding me.
Further, when did Justice Susan Griffin make this statement? Wait for it; here it comes. She made this statement some two months A-F-T-E-R every witness who had been examined as to exactly who had murdered Paul verified that I was correct about Wyatt Prince having committed the murder and A-F-T-E-R the jury had found Wyatt Prince had committed the murder.
So, Madam Justice was stating that I had no credibility even though I was correct about what had occurred and about who had committed the crime. In the real world, people gain credibility when their words are proven true. But in Justice Susan Griffin’s upside down world, my being correct appears to have been a justification for Madam Justice to further criticize me.
Justice Susan Griffin creates “squirm room” with each statement she makes. She’s supposed to be a judge, not a politician
As you read on, please do not lose sight of the fact that Madam Justice’s comments are almost invariably presented in a manner that leaves her squirm room, i.e. “There was evidence that could have…”, “…seemed exaggerated…”, “He [Hal Hannon] seemed unusually…”, and “He [Hal Hannon] may also have said things…” She does a deft job of saying nothing definitive, thus preparing herself to have a counterargument to any criticism of her statements.
Where I grew up, we called it being “spineless” and we gave little credibility to those who were too afraid and ineffectual to speak their mind, or put in simpler terms, who couldn’t simply say exactly what they meant. She’s supposed to be a judge, not a politician.
Madam Justice is a scary individual to have sitting on a judge’s bench
Please realize the potential repercussions to the justice system with those types of weak statements and with such obviously flawed reasoning because this judge sits on other cases. Frankly, the damage she can do is scary to contemplate.
With the above as a backdrop and a window into Madam Justice’s predisposition, I will now turn my attention to some of her other tortuously ridiculous comments which either fail to properly reflect the testimony given in her courtroom and/or fail to pass any test of commonsense.
Hal Hannon: Without facts on their side, the biased often resort to character assassination through innuendo
Justice Susan Griffin blows more hot air with another absurd statement
Now let us examine the following comment by Madam Justice, wherein she bloviated by framing her statement to make no definitive point as she continued to call me a liar, “Mr. Hannon’s evidence during trial seemed at times exaggerated…”
Let’s parse that statement. Something can only be judged an exaggeration when compared to something else. For example, for testimony in court to be deemed “exaggerated”, it must be compared to somebody else’s testimony about the detail(s) being testified to, or compared to actual physical evidence, or compared to what the individual classifying it as “exaggerated” knows to be the truth.
I was the only person present when Prince made his comments to me
In the case of my testimony, I was the only person present when Wyatt Prince told me what he told me. Therefore, I was the only person to testify about my conversations with him. Accordingly, since there was no other testimony with which to compare my testimony about those conversations, Madam Justice could not have judged my testimony about those conversations to be “exaggerated” based on any testimony by others.
Consequently, it then becomes necessary to compare my testimony regarding Prince’s conversations with me as my testimony related to the physical evidence at the actual crime scene. As you saw, above, my testimony in that regard matched perfectly in every detail.
Mark Twain: “Get your facts first and then you can distort them as you like”
Thus, with a comparison of my testimony to the testimony of others and to the actual facts in the case no exaggeration is found to support Justice Susan Griffin’s accusation against me. That being the case, the only remaining item to which to have compared my testimony would have had to have been the actual “truth”.
Therefore, Madam Justice must have been stating that my testimony “seemed exaggerated” when compared to the actual truth.
The problem with Madam Justice’s statement then becomes that she could have had no truth different than that which had already come out in court as matching my testimony, unless she was comparing my testimony to her own truth, a truth that her ego told her she was the only one capable of discerning.
Further proof of my forthrightness is what Justice Susan Griffin did NOT do
Since you, the readers, were not in court, further proof that my testimony matched the facts in the case is that had it not matched, similar to the old Sherlock Holmes mystery solved because the dog didn’t bark, Madam Justice, a woman obviously intent on disparaging me, would have barked.
In other words, she would have pointed to any discrepancy with absoluteness, rather than with a hedging word such as “seemed”, and she would have pointed specifically to a particular statement as being inaccurate or as being a lie, as opposed to simply referring to my testimony, in general, as seeming “exaggerated.”
When testifying in court whereat you are sworn to tell nothing but the truth, is exaggerating not like being a little pregnant? You are pregnant or you are not, and you are either telling the truth or you are lying. In other words, Madam Justice saying that I “exaggerated” was nothing more than a less than clever way to call me a liar, yet again.
I think that people should expect something more from Justice Susan Griffin than that she create some imaginary truth in her own mind and then uses that imaginary conception as evidence to which to compare my testimony, thereby creating her own evidence for the purpose of taking a cooperative witness to the proverbial woodshed.
Justice Susan Griffin demonstrates her total ignorance as to how drugs affect individuals
Madam Justice also said, “There was evidence that could have raised a reasonable doubt as to Mr. Prince having the necessary intent for murder, namely: evidence as to the possibility that he was impaired by his drug use…”
There she goes hedging yet again, i.e. “evidence that could have” and “the possibilty that he was“. Madame Justice’s typically insipid statement not withstanding, Madam Justice needs to educate herself on the effects of drugs on the mind as she obviously thinks that somebody high on drugs cannot form intent, if indeed, Wyatt Prince was actually high at the time, something that nobody established. An addict with a $200 a day heroin habit, which Wyatt Prince was, does not get high by doing a mere $20 heroin fix anymore than you get drunk from a single beer.
Moreover, Justice Susan Griffin seems to think that one can turn “intent” off and on like a light switch and that she is gifted and has the ability to discern exactly when the switch was thrown
Let us take a minute and further dissect this “doubt” due to impairment about which Madam Justice spoke. By her words, Madam Justice believes that Wyatt Prince could make a plan with two other guys, execute on that plan to the point of starting to choke Paul, but not be able, at any point during that choking, to form the intent to kill Paul. That’s absurd.
Does not being told of a plan, participating in that plan, and then executing one’s assigned role in that plan show the ability to form intent? In fact, is it not absolute proof of the ability to form intent? I point this out because Madam Justice also said, “I therefore find that the robbery plan was initiated by Mr. [name withheld for privacy], but was known to Mr. Prince who joined the plan. This was the purpose behind Mr. Prince’s choking of Mr. Rouxel upon the three men entering the apartment.”
Albert Einstein: “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods”
Madam Justice’s reasoning, as revealed by her comment is absurd, because according to her, in spite of Prince’s alleged drug use immediately prior to the robbery and murder, Wyatt Prince had the mental capacity to form the intent to participate in a robbery, wherein Prince’s role was to choke the victim during the home invasion and to follow through with that plan, but because of his alleged drug use, some scant ten minutes later and roughly two minutes into the event while choking Paul, Prince may not have had the mental capacity to form the intent to kill him.
An analysis of that statement by Madam Justice seems to indicate that she believes she is able to determine the exact moment at which somebody loses the ability to form intent.
That is an absolutely ridiculous position for even an uneducated individual to espouse, let alone somebody who must have graduated from college and law school.
The reality is that being high on drugs means that decisions could be made to do things that one might not otherwise do; it does not mean that the person is a brainless idiot incapable of thought, decisions, or intent.
Now, back specifically to Wyatt Prince and how his supposed drug impairment might have affected him, perhaps Madam Justice should have gone to the internet, maybe looked at a site akin to www.drugfreeamerica.org to have begun to understand the effects of the various drugs on a person’s thinking before she determined something as important as a manslaughter sentence based on her ignorance of the effects of drugs.
Madam Justice obviously does not understand what being high actually means, perhaps thinking of it as being similar to some sort of extreme drunkenness from alcohol or even the presence of a zombie like effect in users. Being high invokes a feeling of superiority, sometimes anger, and sometimes paranoia. Further, specifically in the case of heroin which is classified as a “downer” and often referred to on the street as “down”, it tends to mellow one out and make one easier going immediately after its use, not to make one uncontrollably violent.
What about the celebrities who did drugs, could they not form intent because of drugs?
After listening to Justice Susan Griffin, I can only wonder how Madam Justice thinks the scores of rock stars high on drugs could ever form the intent to perform a song on stage and then actually execute on that intent. I also wonder if Madam Justice ever watched a Corey Haim, Heath Ledger, River Phoenix, Robert Downey Jr., Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Judy Garland, or Bela Lugosi movie, or any other movie with one of the hundred or more heroin addicts who performed on screen while high, and remembered there lines to boot, as well as were able to effectively emote to convey humour or drama.
What about the inventors and scientists who did drugs, could they not form intent because of drugs?
Additionally, if using hard drugs is antithetical to forming intent, one can only wonder if the light bulb or the phonograph was an accident because Thomas Edison was an opium (the base active ingredient of heroin) addict, if modern psychiatry was a misbegotten fantasy because Sigmund Freud was an opium addict, if Madam Justice would have bifocals with which to read because Benjamin Franklin was an opium addict, or if Madam Justice could have thought of counting the ways she is loved because Elizabeth Barrett Browning was an opium addict. Of course none of this speaks to other opium addicts such as Arthur Conan Doyle, Charles Dickens, Florence Nightengale, or a host of other luminaries, but I think I have made my point.
You see Madam Justice, there was a time when these types of substances were not illegal. Evidently, in your rush to display your knowledge and wisdom, you revealed your ignorance instead.
Wyatt Prince was aware enough to plan his escape
Returning specifically to Wyatt Prince, further proving my point of how one can be possessed of a very functional mental capacity while high, if indeed Wyatt Prince was high, again a fact which nobody had established, the evidence showed that immediately subsequent to the murder, Wyatt Prince had the presence of mind, and therefore had the intent, to attempt to hide Paul’s body by stuffing it in a closet, as well as the acumen to avoid the elevator cameras, and instead, to use the stairways to return to the apartment from which the raid on Paul had been launched.
Prince’s actions did not indicate the diminished capacity hedgingly assigned to him by Justice Susan Griffin
Wyatt Prince also had the mental wherewithal to be worried about having left behind his DNA, as well as the intellect to “go to ground” until the heat had settled down and to do so away from the building in which he had committed his murder, namely in my building and in my apartment wherein the conversations to which I testified had occurred.
Accordingly, Wyatt Prince was thinking quite lucidly and Madam Justice’s assumption that Prince may have had a diminished mental capacity, as were many of her opinions and assumptions, was ludicrous. By the evidence, Prince’s mind was functioning perfectly, perhaps even at an elevated level of awareness, buoyed by the adrenaline from his kill.
Therefore, without even considering any other aggravating factors, had Madam Justice had the first clue about the effects of drugs, she might have come to a different conclusion regarding sentencing, something she may well have done had she been less focused on destroying my name and more focused on doing the job for which she was paid.
In my opinion, some of what took place in Madam Justice’s courtroom subsequent to the conviction of Wyatt Prince would have been laughable had it not been so lamentable. Madam Justice’s unnecessary opinions, unsupported by the facts, were an affront to me because she consistently implied that I had lied on the stand.
The sentencing was supposed to be about Wyatt Prince’s actions, not my morals.
The jury was the trier of facts, not Madam Justice, and the individuals of that jury were the ones to assess my credibility, not Madam Justice, because her inveighing against me was antithetical to her instructions as a judge and served no purpose whatsoever; the jury had already decided the case and my credibility should have had no bearing on her sentencing.
Clarence Darrow: “Justice has nothing to do with what goes on in a courtroom; justice is what comes out of a courtroom.”
Also for the record, I did not come to court seeking Madam Justice’s approval; I did not require her validation before court; I did not require it during court and I do not require it now; I respect the face I shave every morning.
I had put my life at risk for the previous thirty-four months, but Justice Susan Griffin couldn’t see past her desire to pillory me because of her puritanical “holier than thou” mindset
I came to Madam Justice’s court, having put my life at risk for the previous thirty-four months (the elapsed time between Wyatt Prince having committed the murder and the date of Madam Justice’s issuance of her learned opinion, and this does not take into account future threats and attacks which were assured to come, and which did come.)
I tolerated the thugs and bullies in her courtroom who glared at me and made other discreet and threatening gestures to me during my testimony. I put up with the threats on the courthouse elevators and the verbal assaults on the street, as well as with a subsequent bear mace attack and a separate knife attack. I came to Madam Justice’s courtroom with full knowledge that those or similar instances would occur. I came because I was seeking justice for Paul and closure for his family.
I came prepared for the reaction from the “street”, but I was not expecting to be publicly disrespected, insulted and denigrated by an old biddy. I came to Madam Justice’s courtroom with the truth as my ally, and while I am profoundly disappointed and angry about Madam Justice’s insulting, unappreciative and attacking remarks, I, nevertheless, find a measure of self accomplishment in what I did.
Justice Susan Griffin gets her facts wrong
Now, let us now dive further into Madam Justice’s statements. Despite Madam Justice’s characterization of my relationship as, “…he had previously been in a long term relationship with Mr. Prince’s girlfriend.”
I have a news flash for Madam Justice, there was no testimony that my roommate’s relationship with me had ended. In fact, we were still roommates during the trial. Thus Madam Justice’s statement characterizing my relationship with my roommate as “previously” was incorrect according to testimony at the trial. [Although I was not allowed to be present during my roommate’s testimony in court, I make this statement based on my roommate’s post trial statements to me concerning her testimony.]
Before continuing with the subject of Madam Justice’s inaccuracy in using the word “previously”, I would like to add this thought as to a possible reason why Madam Justice seemed so focused on and offended by my roommate’s relationship with me.
Justice Susan Griffin apparently has a problem tolerating certain relationships
Madam Justice’s history seems to indicate that she may have a problem tolerating certain relationships. For example, she sentenced an abuser who had severely beaten his wife to a twelve year sentence and Prince, an individual who murdered somebody during a home invasion/robbery to only ten years. Although I agree with the long sentence for the wife beater, I am just comparing the severity of the crimes and the disparity between sentences.
How can a beating, no matter how severe, be considered worse than a home invasion and a death? One is left to wonder what sentence Madam Justice might have meted out had the woman who was beaten by her spouse died. Among other examples of Madam Justice’s disdain for what she considers inappropriate attitudes in a marriage or simply inappropriate attitudes about relationships, also please see http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/630271/korean-billionaires-sexist-attitude-toward-women-factor-in-vancouver-divorce-case/
Madam Justice needs to understand that the nature of relationships has changed while her hair has been graying for the past three or four decades. Nobody is forced to wear a scarlet “A,” and men and women actually cohabitate without marriage.
I was not being asked to recall what was said in the preliminary trial, but instead, what was said at the time that the incidents to which I had testified had occurred
Back to Madam Justice’s lapse of memory now, keeping Madam Justice’s inaccuracy in mind and realizing that Madam Justice also made it a point to question my credibility based on a small number of my statements at the actual trial that did not, “verbatim”, match my precise testimony given earlier at the preliminary trial, I would like to remind Madam Justice that at the trial I was being asked to recall conversations and events from some two and one half years previous, conversations that were at the trial even older than they had been at the preliminary trial, I was not being asked to recall precisely what I had said at the preliminary trial.
There is an important distinction between the two, and Madam Justice, of all people, should have understood that fact. Madam Justice should also have known that one’s memory regarding the precise words used in a conversation can vary slightly over time, but what is important is the meaning of what was said, and whether an individual said, “might” or “may” is really irrelevant.
Furthermore, for me to have attempted to recall my previous testimony from the preliminary trial, instead of answering questions based on my recollections, at that moment, regarding the events about which I was being questioned would have been dishonest, and therefore, perjurious.
Additionally, as most experts agree, when statements concerning complex matters match too closely it is evidence of rehearsal-driven memorization, especially when testifying to conversations some thirty months previous, or even older. Accordingly, everything I said in Madam Justice’s courtroom was consistent with me being a forthright individual.
Throughout my interviews with police, my interviews with Crown, and both the preliminary trial and the actual trial, my testimony remained consistent, that Prince had told me the he had choked Paul to shut him up, whether Prince said to shut him “the fu*k up,” to shut him “the hell up,” or just to shut him up does not matter and does not impact credibility.
There are even police notes to verify the time at which Prince told me that he had choked Paul to shut Paul up, because as was testified to, I repeatedly called police and had them take notes so I would not have to attempt to remember hundreds of comments and conversations over an eighteen-month period, and because, with Prince living with me, it would have been even more dangerous than my then current undertaking for me to have taken notes and kept those notes in my home, especially so with Prince’s propensity to rifle through my drawers. Perhaps Madam Justice didn’t think that I was taking enough risks with my life already by living with Prince and reporting to the police about him.
Where is Justice Susan Griffin’s perfect memory?
I just have this to add about Madam Justice’s insult to me based on her logic of my failure to have “total recall,” if one is deemed dishonest because he/she could not precisely recall every detail of long ago conversations and events, what does that say about a judge’s credibility when that judge could not remember the status of my relationship with my roommate from a hearing at which that judge had just presided over only a few months earlier, especially when that judge had access to the transcripts of both the preliminary trial and the actual trial before rendering any decision or commenting on the reasoning for that decision?
Justice Susan Griffin gets everything backwards as she says offering to have police video tape in my apartment indicates a desire to be deceptive
Let us now examine Madam Justice’s next objection to me, namely, my offering to allow police to electronically monitor my apartment. Of course, I offered to do so, and in fact, did not just offer it, but encouraged the police to set up surreptitious video and audiotape recordings in my suite.
I needed to protect my roommate, to see to justice for Paul’s murder, and to get a violent killer, Prince, out of my life and off the street as soon as possible; and therefore, was more than willing, even solicitous, of having the police record in my suite hoping that the police doing so might lessen my load by hastening Prince’s arrest.
I was living with a drug addicted, conscienceless killer who was growing even more violent, even more paranoid, and consequently, more unpredictable every day and who had threatened, on many occasions, especially since his murder of Paul, to kill me, and to “fu*king murder” me.
Marcus Tullius Cicero: “I prefer tongue-tied knowledge to ignorant loquacity.”
I offered to allow police to video tape because I knew I was right
Needing Prince out of my life, a videotaped confession by Prince of exactly what he had done seemed the most efficient way to achieve that goal. Trading places with Madam Justice, assuming that she had the guts to do what I did, which I sincerely doubt, would she have wanted to continue to live with Prince for even one second longer than absolutely necessary or would she have offered the police the opportunity to gather as much evidence as possible as quickly as possible?
Let’s think this through a little further though. If, as Madam Justice implies, I was exaggerating or fabricating evidence, why would I offer to give the police proof of my alleged chicanery by subjecting myself to video and audio recordings of those alleged transgressions?
As was so often the case in her ex cathedra speech, Madam Justice’s premise was entirely devoid of logic. Had I had been lying or otherwise misleading the police, I would have attempted to hide such transgressions, rather than offer to allow the police to have them memorialized on video tape.
I was paid by police
Continuing on with another of Madam Justice’s comments about me that she offered in her public courtroom as a fact that influenced my credibility, “Mr. Hannon was paid by the police for his role.”
Damn…. according to Madam Justice, not only was I a liar, but I was a paid liar.
While Madam Justice obviously did not recognize that living with Prince and having to maintain his trust was a severe detriment to my income, which even though I sometimes bought used electronics from drug addicts and applied my computer skills to other ventures, was to a substantial degree derived from doing business plans, brochures, and promotional work for various companies and individuals, I think that you can appreciate that having a business client stop by my apartment while Prince was raging about getting shorted on his last heroin deal or was in the bathroom doing a fix would not have been the best thing for my business image, and therefore, Prince’s presence was costing me significant income, as well as potential future earning.
Additionally, due to the fact that Prince had previously tortured my pet rabbit when left alone in my apartment, I could not just leave him there while I traipsed off to meet a client, and Prince would often refuse to leave and become enraged and threaten violence if I insisted that he go. Accordingly, I had to put the most lucrative portion of my business on hold from the time of the murder up until Prince was finally arrested approximately one year later.
Moreover, as stated, I lived with a drug addicted, violent, self-confessed murderer for some eighteen months after he had confessed his murder to me, risking my physical safety and my life every day. Would Madam Justice not want to get paid for that had she done the same or would she think it part of her civic duty to risk her life, daily?
I don’t see Madam Justice refusing her pay cheques because of civic duty. Does the fact that she gets paid for her role in the justice system lessen her credibility?
Justice Susan Griffin was trying to leave a false impression with the courtroom observers
With this comment by Madam Justice about me being paid, it is almost an unavoidable conclusion that Madam Justice was attempting to leave the impression that I was being paid for the efficacy of my testimony as that efficacy might have related to a conviction. Again, this should have had nothing to do with Prince’s sentence as the jury had found him “GUILTY”. Madam Justice knew this but could not resist another opportunity to attempt to smear me with a false premise that she thought nobody was clever enough to understand.
The truth is that Madam Justice knew that one of the stipulations of my contract with police, of which she had a copy, was that my pay would be forfeit if I was dishonest or lied, and another was that, barring any dishonesty by me, my pay was guaranteed whether or not Wyatt Prince was convicted. Thus, money could not have been an incentive for me to lie. Contracts with the police always have stipulations of that nature, but generally it is the defense that uses the “paid by police” ploy as a reason to question a witness’s credibility, not the judge.
Furthermore, let me ask you who you think would be the more honest witness, the guy who would lose a chunk of money if he lied and might also face perjury charges, or the guy who would lose no money if he lied, but might face perjury charges? Obviously, my contract with the police was an incentive to tell the truth.
Finally on this point of me getting paid, is Madam Justice suggesting that the police suborned perjury, trying to get me to say something I knew not to be true? If so, where is the perjury charge?
If Madam Justice claims that she is not saying or implying that, then what earthly difference did it make that I was paid by the police if there was no subornation of perjury and if lying would have invalidated my contract, and therefore, why bring up that point in her summation of her Oral Reasons for Sentence unless to further falsely attack my credibility? And since it was brought up in the context of her oral reasons, I can only wonder, as with her other criticisms of me, what in the hell it had to do with her sentencing decision?
Let’s dig deeper into Justice Susan Griffin’s backwards thinking
Now, let us dig even deeper into Madam Justice’s analysis of my testimony. Because I was one of the earliest, within minutes of it occurring, to alert the police that the death of Paul was a robbery gone bad resulting in a murder, and because I knew that Paul’s body had been moved to a closet, and because I knew the cause of death, knew the names of the three people involved in the robbery, knew two of them had left the scene with the money before the murder, as well as other details, it is obvious that Prince told me these things, especially because Prince was the only person present during the actual murder, and therefore, the only person with the knowledge to have told me, and more especially, because the facts at the scene both collaborated my statements to police and my testimony.
Accordingly, with the knowledge demonstrated by me, above, a knowledge demonstrated within minutes of the murder, we know Prince must have talked to me in detail about the murder. Therefore, is it not strikingly obvious that Prince could very easily and very understandably have told me why he strangled Paul? In fact, Prince seemed eager and excited to tell me all about the murder because he wanted to brag to somebody.
The facts are that my evidence concerning the manner of Paul’s death, the circumstances with Paul’s body, the fact that there had been a successful robbery and the fact that the other two robbers had fled the scene prior to Prince killing Paul had to have come from one of two places, either from Prince, or from the police, but wait…. the police could not have told me about Prince and about any other participants or the identity of the other two intruders because all the police knew at the time when Paul’s body was discovered is what was at the crime scene itself, and they could not even know it was actually a crime scene until I told them because no autopsy had been performed as of then and because as came out in court later, the bruising on Paul’s neck from the strangulation was not strikingly evident at the time.
I reminded you of all of that because of Justice Susan Griffin’s next idiotic accusation against me
Then what are we to make of Madam Justice’s opinion when she stated, “He [referring to my testimony] may also have said things that were informed by information learned after the fact.” What was Madam Justice talking about with this objection/accusation?
She cannot have been talking about when Prince made his statement of intent to me, because as I testified to in court, Prince made that statement a day or two after the murder. Therefore, since everybody knew that my testimony about Prince’s statement of intent was made sometime later, Madam would NOT have used the word “may” had she been talking about that. Ergo, she must have been talking about the statement which Prince made to me about the murder scene and the other participants.
The problem with this accusation by Madam Justice is that I just proved a few paragraphs back that my knowledge regarding the actual events on the night of the murder had to have come immediately following the murder. So, Madam Justice has stuck her foot in her mouth yet again.
As if she had not yet made enough false allegations against me, Madam Justice continued marching forward, but this time not with pointed insults to me, but with a general description of my testimony as being “fraught with difficulty”. Madam Justice knew exactly what she was saying with that snide comment and with all her other scurrilous remarks about my testimony. I think from the analysis so far that it is abundantly clear that what was “fraught with difficulty” was Madam Justice’s logic, not my testimony.
A picture is worth a thousand words
Now, let’s take a closer look at the video surveillance in my apartment. While it is true, as Madam Justice points out, that Prince made no inculpatory remarks, Madam Justice seems to have ignored a significant part of the video tape, the part wherein Prince’s actions spoke as loud as any words might have.
Early on in that video that was recorded by police of Prince in my apartment, I showed Prince a press release about the murder, a press release that had been put together by police specifically for that moment, and which, for the first time, publicly defined Paul’s death as a murder. Immediately upon reading it, Prince sat in stunned silence for maybe thirty seconds, then grabbed a pen and a piece of paper from my desk, and began furiously writing.
Next, having finished writing, Prince handed the paper to me; I read it, and it did include inculpatory content, nothing specifically to do with his intent, but inculpatory nonetheless. In an attempt to preserve the evidence, I crumpled the paper into a ball and tossed it toward the trash bag hanging in the kitchen (missing it), hoping to retrieve it later.
So concerned was Prince about the contents of that paper that he immediately arose from the bed, crossed to the kitchen, snatched up the crumpled paper from the kitchen floor and tore it into little pieces. He then disappeared into the bathroom and the sound of a flushing toilet could be heard.
If I was the liar that Madam Justice would like people to believe, why does she think that Prince retrieved the paper and then ensured that nobody else would ever read it?
You need to look at Wyatt Prince’s criminal record to appreciate the next section wherein Justice Susan Griffin actually pronounces sentence on Prince
Prince’s criminal record over just a seven year period in British Columbia only, with other provinces excluded because no records are available from those provinces:
- Break and Enter (3)
- Assault (2)
- Breach of Conditions, (6)
- Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, (6)
- Robbery, (1)
- Possession of a Dangerous Weapon (2)
- Uttering Threats (1)
He did all this in between jail stints for which he was incarcerated for at least three of those seven years, and that just includes British Columbia, omitting his crime spree in Alberta because those records were not available to me, but they were available to Justice Susan Griffin.
Before telling Prince the actual time he would serve, Madam Justice said to Prince, “Mr. Prince, you did express remorse. You turned to face the family members of Mr. Rouxel’s family in the courtroom and said how sorry you were. I believe that you were sincere in your remorse.”
Yet again, really? Is Madam Justice joking? Please consider:
- Throughout the preliminary trial and the actual trial, Wyatt Prince had never uttered even a single word to The Court other than “Not Guilty.”
- The only other words spoken by Prince were those contained in his obligatory apology to the family, words possibly written and rehearsed with Prince’s attorney, and they were words uttered with Prince’s back to Madam Justice wherein she could not even see Prince’s eyes. From her vantage point, Madam Justice could not know exactly where Wyatt Prince was looking or what his eyes revealed, if anything, about the sincerity of his words. For all Madam Justice knew Prince could have been looking at the wall behind the family and not the family.
The jury had just found that Wyatt Prince had committed a home invasion robbery and manslaughter; therefore, despite that fact, at that point, Madam Justice, based on nothing other than the sound of Prince’s voice, was judging a convicted robber and murderer to be sincere.
- Further, Madam Justice could see Prince’s extensive criminal record to which Madam Justice herself had stated, “ Prince’s criminal record and history does not allow for placing much weight on the sentencing objective of rehabilitation.” This comment makes no sense in view of Madam Justice’s statement that she judged Prince’s expression of remorse to be sincere. Is not rehabilitation a natural byproduct of remorse?
- Moreover, considering Madam Justice’s proven lack of knowledge of how individuals who are high on drugs behave, considering the fact that Madam Justice could not see Prince’s eyes, with the eyes being one of the few ways that a trained individual can determine whether or not a person might be high, and also considering the fact that trial had been delayed once already because Prince overdosed in jail (yes, illegal drugs are available in jail), then for all Madam Justice knew, by the evidence before her, Prince was high on drugs when he professed his alleged remorse for killing Paul.
With that backdrop, Madam Justice, seemingly by divine inspiration, determined that Wyatt Prince was “sincere” and that my testimony, uncontested by any witnesses and supported by all evidence at the crime scene, was “fraught with difficulty.” It is ludicrous.
I challenge Madam Justice to charge me with perjury if her insults to me were anything other than prejudiced remarks against me because she allowed her moral compass to be so offended by the fact that I had a relationship with a woman approximately half my age that Madam Justice lost her sense of judgment and justice.
In fact though, for whatever reason, even if due to some tilt in her moral compass, if Madam Justice really believed I lied, was it not her duty to have had me charged with perjury or to have had the Wyatt Prince trial declared a mistrial? She did neither. Accordingly, and not at all surprisingly to me, Madam Justice’s vitriolic statements about my testimony did not mirror her actions.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor: It is very important when you judge to recognize that you have to stay impartial. That’s what the nature of my job is. I have to unhook myself from my emotional responses and try to stay within my unemotional, objective persona.
I now say to Madam Justice, “Somebody had to correct the record; consider it corrected.”
In summation of Madam Justice’s twaddle in her Oral Reasons for Sentence, I further say, “If clear and direct talk was a furnace, she would have to move to the Caribbean every winter, and if logic was a pair of galoshes, she would be running around with wet feet every time it rained.”
Finally, Madam Justice’s Obiter Dictum damaged the very protections of the justice system to witnesses because Madam Justice used the cloak of immunity granted her by her position to repeatedly bully me and insult me, a witness who was only in her courtroom because the police had told me early on that no prosecution of Wyatt Prince was likely unless I was willing to testify.
Justice Susan Griffin has damaged the cause of justice
I have spent the last fifteen years of my life refusing to be a victim of haters and I will not destroy my perfect record by becoming Madam Justice Susan Griffin’s victim. Haters come from all walks of life with some of them wearing black robes, swinging a gavel and sitting on a bench. Sadly, the real victim of Madam Justice’s hate is the justice system itself.
Who does Madam Justice expect will ever willingly come forth in the future to do their civic duty and risk their well being if they are to be subjugated to the verbal abuse and disrespect of an ungrateful and vindictive judge? (That was a rhetorical question only.) Shame on her!
Madam Justice can always find a legal loophole with which to bring suit against me. If she does, and wins, it will be a Pyrrhic victory because this blog posting will live forever on the internet, and I am a broke old pensioner. Besides, with her actions detailed for all to see, I will win the ensuing internet PR battle and will then promote the truth from the distant corners of the internet, and gain greater distribution of my book by billing it as “the book the courts don’t want you to read.”
If Madam Justice thinks I am wrong in my opinions or analyses herein, instead of bringing suit against me, I challenge her to a face to face debate. I will meet her in any public forum, and she can bring her law books and her priggish attitude, and I will bring my commonsense and the truth. I don’t think such a debate will ever happen though because her position is indefensible and her actions in court were inexcusable.
I can’t help but wonder…
How would Justice Susan Griffin have treated me in her courtroom if she thought of me as a less marginalized person, and therefore, less victimizable by her? Would she have insulted me as she did if I hadn’t have lived in the hood or if I hadn’t have counted among my friends IV drug users and working girls? Would she have twisted the law with her false logic if she had believed that I could reason? Would she have made her attack as vicious as it was if she had imagined that I had the writing skills to fashion a lucid and compelling response? Does her ego tell her that she is better than everybody or just select individuals? I wonder… What do you think?
Author’s Note: This blog posting represents my opinions concerning one judge’s actions and comments at one specific trial, and as such is not intended to make generalizations about her or about her character. It is simply meant to analyze her actions and comments in that trial, and thereby, in the only manner available to me, to correct the public record which she created. While I still have a sincere respect for the courts, I no longer have any respect for Madam Justice Susan Griffin, nor can I imagine I ever will, short of her public apology.
Other media must back away from any criticism of Justice Susan Griffin and other lawyers fear her…
Other media is dependent on good relationships with the courts for their news, while lawyers might appear before her or a friend of hers who may also be a judge, so both groups must show her respect or suffer possible consequences. I don’t care about the consequences and speak the truth about her anyhow. I neither respect her, nor fear her, and I don’t give a horse’s behind whether I appear before her again or before one of her friends.
I do have fear though; I fear for those others who must appear before her kangaroo court and what Justice Susan Griffin’s sense of justice might portend for those unfortunate souls