Canada: Retired detective refuses to admit error in wrongful conviction

As a cop he learned not to

Ivan Henry was wrongfully convicted of sexual assault in 1983. He is suing prosecutors for allegedly breaching his Charter rights after he was acquitted in 2010 of 10 sexual-assault convictions.

It appears to have ossified retired Vancouver police detective William Harkema.

The 72-year-old, who made key investigative decisions that led to the wrongful conviction of Ivan Henry for a series of 1980s sex assaults, may have turned to stone.

During his week-long testimony at Henry’s B.C. Supreme Court trial seeking compensation for the 27 years he spent in prison, Harkema came across as bitter, refusing to even consider he might have made a horrendous mistake.

Racked by health problems and sitting outside the witness box to accommodate his discomforts, Harkema took refuge in a spotty memory, or simply denied any responsibility for Henry’s ordeal.

He bristled at being labelled the lead investigator, although he received a commendation for being “the task force coordinator and responsible for preparing the (Henry) case for court.” While his superiors praised his devotion, “the backbone of the investigation,” Harkema sourly maintained “that wasn’t my opinion, it was their opinion.”

He chafed at the suggestion he should have pointed out the discrepancies in the identification of Henry and other problems with the case.

Some of the victims described the attacker as short with blue eyes, small hands and smelling of body odour. Henry was 5-foot-10, 170 pounds, with large hands, and his wife said he was fastidiously clean.

“I’m not going to argue with the prosecutor,” insisted Harkema, who was then a 17-year veteran and a senior major crimes investigator.

Two other detectives had been working for a year or so on a score of sex assaults thought to have been committed by a single suspect known as the “Rip-off Rapist.”

But Harkema was given the file on June 17, 1982, with the expectation he would produce results.

Police had put Henry under surveillance, sprinkled invisible fluorescent powder in his car hoping it would turn up at a crime scene incriminating him, installed a dial-number recorder on his phone and obtained a wiretap warrant.

Nothing implicated Henry.

Still, after reading the file and reviewing his past convictions in Winnipeg, Harkema was sure: “I was convinced he was the main suspect.”  In fact, Henry was Harkema’s only suspect.

Just over a month after he was handed the case, a fellow officer hypnotized one of the victims, J.F., and the following day, Harkema showed her a photo array that included Henry standing in front of a jail cell.

On June 8, the day J.F. was assaulted, she told an officer she stared at the attacker for 30 seconds but “had difficulty describing him.” She said at the time he was in his “mid-20s, light brown, possibly curly hair … grey-blue eyes.”

At that time, Henry was 35 with red or auburn-coloured hair and hazel-brown eyes.

“Did you stop and think, ‘Hang on a minute, this description of J.F. of her assailant does not fit with Ivan Henry. I’d better be looking at somebody else or at least stop looking at him?’” lawyer Richard Brooks asked. “Did that occur to you?”

“No, no, it didn’t,” Harkema replied.

“In retrospect,” Henry’s lawyer continued, “don’t you think it should have?”

“No,” Harkema said.

On July 27, the day after the hypnosis session with the detectives, nearly two months after her assault, J.F. picked Henry from the photo array. She was the only victim to positively identify him.

Although she testified at the preliminary inquiry, J.F. was an American who returned to New Jersey and did not attend Henry’s trial. Her prejudicial testimony was read in.

On June 21, 1983, after Henry’s conviction, J.F. wrote a heart-felt letter to Harkema apologizing for not attending the trial and letting him down.

She emphasized how he was a person of tremendous caring, recalling his “blue eyes.” She invited him to visit and come to a Yankees game. “I made it to a Yankees game, but not with her,” he said. “And it was in Fenway Park.”

Harkema said he showed his wife the letter 33 years ago then put it in a fireproof, metal box where it lay until he turned it over to city lawyers in 2011.

Brooks quoted from in one last time — “you are always acting as my guarding angel.”

“You didn’t give it to (Prosecutor Michael) Luchenko?” the lawyer added.

“No,” Harkema said. “I thought it was a personal letter, I guess.”

Asked if he had seen J.F. since, he said no.

From his testimony, all those years ago Harkema locked away something more than a letter — a tender man. He was nowhere in evidence.

The trial continues.

Original report here


(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress.  If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where  posts  appear as well as on  the primary site.  I have reposted  the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts  HERE or HERE or here