In November 2008 Wilfred Hathway pleaded guilty to manslaughter. On the 28th Justice G.N. Allbright sentenced him to 11½ years with a credit of 7½ years for time served. He was released July 30 2011 with the condition that he stay away from booze and dope.
 For all these reasons, Mr. Hathway, I sentence you to serve a term of imprisonment of 11½ years, and I direct that you are deemed to have served 7½ years of that sentence. You are therefore sentenced to serve a further 4 years imprisonment as part of your 11½-year sentence.
Major player in Hathway sting operation, Justin Harris, alleged to have raped several underage prostitutes in Prince George, B.C. | RCMP show arrogant attitude about the public's right to know
Wilf Hathway leaves Court Thursday afternoon
Hathway provided Judge Rothery with a cross-referenced brief and spoke for half an hour outlining the reasons why he should be disclosed the negatives of the original crime scene so he could check it against the various booklets of photographs he has been provided. He also asked that two unknown profiles found on a rum bottle at the crime scene should be checked against the Saskatchewan database.
Rothery rolled her eyes, made sarcastic interjections and showed her general unwillingness to create an environment where justice could find a footing in her courtroom. Hathway's requests were straightforward enough and it should have taken her five minutes to order the crown to provide the disclosure Hathway is entitled to.
Instead, as is her prerogative, she reserved her decision.
Hathway has now been incarcerated for 29 months.
--Sheila Steele, Sept. 29, 2006 (she passed away in November 2006)
The Milgaard Inquiry: Head of Saskatchewan Prosecutions comes within a hair's breadth of calling Winnipeg reporter Dan Lett "a cheap whore". His reason for this slur is that Lett took Joyce Milgaard's investigation seriously and wrote news articles bringing the facts to the public. By the same reasoning, Director of Public Prosecutions Murray Brown, Justice Minister/Attorney General Frank Quennell and the Law Society of Saskatchewan could be said to be high-rolling Pimps. They control the actions of the lawyers in their stables and use publication bans to control the media. They lie to reporters who attempt to investigate beyond what they put "on the record" and persist in prosecutions they know to be malicious. (more to follow)
--Sheila Steele, September 15, 2006
Brent Klause was not there. Instead, Prosecutor Krista Zerr went through a list of 17 alleged remarks Hathway made to undercover RCMP officer Martin (the name I have been using to protect the identity of this law enforcement agent who posed as a "friend" and filled his notes with outrageous statements he attributed to Hathway.) Judge Koch acknowleged the remarks were hearsay but told Hathway he could challenge them in voir dire before the trial judge in December. Of course there are still outstanding issues regarding the Saskatoon Police who, conspiring with Prosecutor Brent Klause, have tampered with evidence. The crime scene photos have yet to be scrutinized by an expert to determine which photos are missing, have been cropped, which order they should be in and in which officer took them.
The Court has already ordered the Crown and Police to deal with Hathway's request for an independent expert to examine the photos.
The Crown has used up its arsenal of tricks to delay it! We have been working tirelessly to get before a judge important information which should not only allow Hathway to breathe some free air but can prevent a wrongful conviction before it happens! Brent Klause's stubborn refusal to recognize he has NO EVIDENCE to take to trial is typical of the actions of many prosecutors who successfully bamboozle judges and juries and gain dirty convictions. We hope we can provide an alternative template by exposing the illegal tricks and conspiracies for what they really are!
This picture above is from June, 2005. Fourteen months later, Aug. 1, 2006, Wilf Hathway has been through a preliminary hearing which was conducted without full disclosure from the Crown. That illegally withheld disclosure provides the basis for his application for judicial release.
Hathway has been imprisoned for 27 months.
The public hearing will be held at Court of Queen's Bench, Saskatoon, August 1, commencing at two, p.m. Such hearings are unusual and we encourage everyone to attend to witness how justice is conducted in Saskatchewan!
--Sheila Steele, Aug. 4, 2006
Wilf Hathway comes to court, May 18, 2006
We hope this is the last time he comes in cuffs and shackles!
Peter Abrametz, lawyer acting for Wilfred Hathway, has informed the registrar at Court of Queen's Bench, Saskatoon, that a 522 Interim Judicial Release application, supported with evidence, will be filed to be heard by the end of June or early July, 2006.
The application will ask specifically that:
Wifred Hathway be released from custody as the case before the Court does not support a conviction or, in the alternative, it has an extremely weak chance of conviction, therefore not justifying his continued detention.
Hathway has been in custody for 26 months (Since May 12, 2004) charged with the first degree murder of his former landlord, Denver Bruce Crawford. Injusticebusters and Izon Inhustice have been working to get him a fair hearing since September, 2004.
Richard Klassen and Robert Borden, at Queen's Bench Courthouse last October while Borden was still acting for Wilf Hathway. Borden withdrew from the Hathway case for no reason last December.
Wilfred Gordon Hathway Q.B. - 124-06
910-60th Street E
S7K 2H6 Original Copy
February 15/06 Signed: G. Hathway
Chief Justice Laing,
I am of the opinion and belief that I am rightfully compelled to personally address your honour, on several points which quite frankly, never intended my case to be the platform from which these points are fostered.
My appearance before you on February 14, 2006, was for the sole purpose of addressing your honorable Court, on matters clearly delineated in my motion and accompanied by my affidavit; duly and properly sworn.
You sir, chose to make a well intentioned and obviously meritorious "speech" to me, which, in my humble opinion, was directed at my friends and was unsolicited, and entirely unnecessary, as I did not seek your councel, I'm not without an extremely clear understanding of the position your speech outlines, or the details spoken to therein.
From one man to another, however separated by fate, circumstance and reason to attend the February 14 "hearing", I believe we both made several comments that had little if any judicial value, as they were certainly not "on point", as the motion before you was intended to be.
Being charged and ultimately committed to stand trial for the cowardly and brutal wrongful death of Denver Crawford, is the most serious matter I have or will ever endure, in my lifetime. For that reason, I feel absolutely within my right, to speak to any aspect of my case that I choose to speak to.
However unsolicited your speech and various advisements through out the "hearing" may have been, much of which you stated to me was quite obviously the words of a man of wisdom, with much experience and more likely, with the intent to assist me in this, my most arduous of journeys.
Be that as it may, I take absolute offence to the substance of several of your remarks, and in particular, I take offence to those remarks as they were made public by way of recorded proceedings. I won't even address the Crown's statements as they were slanderous and completely uncalled for.
Undoubted, you are aware of some aspects of my case, as it has gained considerable media attention. I invite any and all scrutiny to my case, as the prosecution of me is malicious and will not stand the microscope of intelligent analysis. I stand by each and every remark I made about the Crown Prosecutor Klause and the malice readily apparent in the case before the Courts.
I do not wish to belabor the issues I took offence to during the "Court time" so I felt I should write to you personally. You may feel this method of communication is unwarranted or inappropriate, however my being brought before your honorable Court is solely for the purpose of attending to those matters which are properly filed and dated for judicial process.
Herein lies a point form précis of the points I take great issue with. Which need not have been raised by you and could just as easily have been dealt with by addressing the aspect of my motion, that the "points" you made, were in reference to.
I believe that your deliberate attempt to dissuade me from my association with Richard Klassen and Angela Geworsky, or anyone else for that matter, was totally gratuitous and uncalled for.
If it were possible, I would, above all others, see to it that Richard Klassen represented me throughout the remainder of my arduous journey, however I am aware of the Supreme Courts Decision and reasons for "members of the public", as opposed to "members of recognized Law Societies" to be excluded from "practicing law". My friends are crusaders for justice, and to say their efforts are self serving is a kin to suggesting sister Theresa's efforts on behalf of the poor and oppressed, were also, in her own way, self serving. I'm certain you will agree that even performing random acts of kindness, contain a self serving component!
I have the right ( inalienable) to retain and instruct councel, and how I make my determinations as to which instructions I make to my councel or the provenance by which I bare these decisions is really my business. Believe you me, if I felt OSAMA BIN LADEN could see me reunited with my daughter Shayla, I would; if possible, bring him "on board".
Your contention that Mr. Klassen and Ms. Geworsky have no experience and that they should somehow feel guilty for possibly imposing harm to my defence, is groundless, fictitious and had the deleterious affect of insulting closest allies and most staunch supporters, when people like Mark Brayford, simply laughed at me for having the "audacity" to ask for their assistance, given Saskatchewan Court Services pay schedules, which Mr. Brayford stated, would not even pay his secretary's wages. (I appreciated his honesty, truth be told).
The possibility that my friends might have taken your admonishments to heart and walked away from my case, would have diminished my emotional and spiritual heath, by its stringent component; that being "hope". In so doing, I feel your statements were particularly acrimonious and potentially devastating to me, in spite of what I do believe, were good intentions. Suffice to say, sometimes our opinions are better left unspoken, from my point of view, which I am obviously entitled to and have no problem articulating, whether it be in the highest court in the land, to my four year old or to the dregs of society with whom I share a living space.
As my friends Klassen and Geworsky are assisting other members of the community, and are currently before the courts, I believe you making public your opinions as to their intentions, agenda and "value", could likely or at least possibly have deleterious effects on the outcome of any or all of those proceedings, and as the recently appointed Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, with no disrespect intended, I don't believe it was within your purview to make public your opinions. Simply stating that "f" in my motion was denied, would have sufficed; and I to perhaps, strayed far over the line in my making public my opinions of Crown Prosecutor Brent Klause, however I will back up each and every word I said with sworn testimony, affidavit or other irrefutable evidence.
I have no idea how other Queen's Bench will adjudicate my case from heretofore, as I believe your public statements could possibly influence their judicial discretion in matters which lie ahead of me. That, Sir, is a perilous and particularly offensive and possibly unimaginable consequences of your statements.
It is perhaps not my place to ask that you address any of these issues; however I have no problem turning these opinions and beliefs of mine, into the subject of much public debate, replete with bullhorns and widely disseminated literature. I do not wish to do that, nor do I, nor have I ever, wished that my case provide a platform for anyone's personal agenda.
This fax is intended to implore you to make an attempt at diminishing, if not rescinding your personal opinions, regarding my choice of friends and assistants, and whatever value they may or may not have to me or any other member of the community. The Saskatoon Police Service, according to Sgt. Randy Huisman, has taken evidence Mr. Klassen and Ms. Geworsky have given them, so seriously that they pulled a team of detectives off of their regular major crimes duties, to pursue that evidence. In addition, they provided routine patrol car surveillance on the Klassen home, as, in assisting my defence, their sacrifices have been total, even to the point of putting themselves in harms way. Bottom Line - I implore you to judicially examine this statement.
Read the transcript of his remarks in open court on Wilf Hathway's motion for disclosure (This is a 29 page transcipt in PDF format. It is a quick read and a MUST read for anyone concerned with fair trial issues.
Today, Mr. Justice Laing delivered his decision to Wilf Hathway regarding the disclosure in his case. The Crown has ten days to deliver to him the original files: he can have everyting and keep it in his cell with the exception of the RCMP confession tape which he can review at any time with the Crown's supervision. The Crown advanced no persuasive argument which would justify taking away Hathway's Stinchcombe rights.
He states in the judgment that Mr. (Richard) Klassen will have no standing to speak for him at trial.
Here is a problem: Justice Laing should have recused himself from hearing this case in the first place.
So, the disclosure issue is being resolved. But what about other relevant disclosure which Hathway has asked for and which has been denied to him by the Crown, with such denial being approved by a judge?
Mr. Justice Robert Laing was also the judge who presided over the Jaime Wheeler murder trial where Dominic McCullock was found guilty of second degree murder and was sentenced to 15 years without possibility of parole. He has now decreed that Wilfred Hathway's defence team cannot receive disclosure regarding the Wheeler murder, calling it a "tangent" theory.
If there is no truth to the theory that Denver Crawford and Jaime Wheeler might have been murdered by the same people, why not let the public know the reason why?
Mark Brayford (right), Dominic McCullock's defence counsel, is dragging his feet as far as getting McCullock's appeal perfected. We have in our hands a document which suggests a possible link to the house Wheeler was living in to gangsters who were profitting from crystal meth manufacturing in Saskatoon and who were also Brayford's clients.
There is also evidence suggesting the rental properties which Denver Crawford owned were being managed by parties who are also making their money by shady means.
It is not up to a judge to decide a defence theory is a "tangent."
The public has a right to know what police, defence lawyers and crown prosecutors are covering up in these cases.