The case of Anthony Hanemaayer points to flaws in the system
Editorial

It would be a very serious mistake to shrug off the case of Anthony Hanemaayer as an accident or an isolated incident.

In 1989, Hanemaayer was an innocent young man who had been accused of attacking a teenage girl. As it turned out, the infamous Paul Bernardo was responsible for the act, confessing to it about two years ago. But at the time, Hanemaayer's lawyer advised him to plead guilty and accept a relatively light sentence, on the order of two years, rather than face being found guilty after a full trial, and getting something stiffer, like six to eight years.

Hanemaayer ended up doing 17 months in jail for something Bernardo did.

There are some who would argue that 17 months was not an excessive time to spend in custody, although we don't think anyone out there would voluntarily accept such conditions willingly. It might have been a fitting penalty for someone like Bernardo to have faced, had he been before the courts to answer for such a crime. But Hanemaayer was innocent, meaning 17 months in custody was clearly 17 months too long.

Can this be called an isolated incident? We don't think so. In the last year, the records of high-profile convicted murderers Stephen Truscott and Robert Baltovich have been wiped clean, with good reason. And it was because both these men had high profiles that we heard about their cases and watched as they became subjects of public debate. Such has also been the case with Hanemaayer, but let us all be realistic. We heard about this case because Bernardo was involved. If not for that connection, we'd likely have heard nothing.

What about the other cases we have never heard about?

We accept that these statements have to be tempered with the realization that when it comes to dealing with criminals in our society, there are few better systems in the world than the one we have here in Canada. But that gives us no right to sit back and rest on laurels; not when there are people like Anthony Hanemaayer out there. He did time for a crime, while the real perpetrator was free to go about his business and eventually abduct and murder two young women. That is reality that simply can't be shrugged off or dismissed.

Until our judicial system is perfected, we have to accept the fact that innocent people are going to be convicted. And every time that happens, the guilty person walks free.

How do we improve things? Hanemaayer's mother Wilma believes too much faith was placed on the statements of the one eyewitness to the attack, namely the victim's mother.

And Hanemaayer's father Peter cited comments made by lawyer James Lockyer, reported in the June 26 edition of the Toronto Star, that evidence from eyewitness identification played a role in about 75 per cent of the wrongful convictions in the U.S. that were overturned because of DNA evidence.

Again, we have to stress those are the wrongful convictions that were discovered. How many have been missed?

A good first step would be to get judges to point out to juries that eyewitnesses can be wrong.

Nothing controversial about such a statement, and nothing unrealistic either. True, it always sounds convincing when we hear from a person who was actually there and saw something. But on the other hand, there are a lot of factors that can throw one's judgment off, like poor light, bad angles, fear for the safety of one who is being victimized, etc.

Can eyewitnesses be wrong? Don't ask us. Ask Hanemaayer.