Final Appeal

Anatomy of a Frame
By
$34.95

On May 7, 1984, Colin Thatcher was convicted of killing his ex-wife JoAnn Wilson the previous year, and was sentenced to life in prison. The murder and the trial provoked a national media frenzy, and the once-prominent Saskatchewan politician was cast nationwide as a villain, the subject of numerous books and a CBC movie. Though Thatcher claimed innocence and his children agreed, few believed him.

Now having served his 22-year sentence, Colin Thatcher offers his own account of what happened from the time of the murder up until his release from prison. Denied full disclosure during his trial, Thatcher now offers it to the public with evidence not seen in the trial, legal documents and personal correspondence. Part memoir, part crime expos?Final Appeal goes behind the bureaucratic red tape, ultimately questioning the public’s faith in local law enforcement, the mainstream media, and the administration of justice in Canada.

AttachmentSize
Read an excerpt from Final Appeal169.06 KB

More Books About:

Comments

“During his 22-year incarceration, with the assistance of a private investigator, Colin Thatcher uncovered new information about a crucial phone call and a missing credit card slip. Together, these items could have led a jury to a ‘reasonable doubt’ verdict. The [Globe's] editorial further argues that convicted criminals should have the "right to freedom of expression," and that is the principle ECW Press followed in agreeing to give Colin Thatcher his Final Appeal
- Jack David, Letter to the Editor, The Globe and Mail

That you have the right to print this garbage is indisputable. Freedom of speech does indeed include the delusions of murderers.
However, this does not free you from the consequences of your actions. That you thought to profit from the murder of a woman, and to further the lies and profit of a murderer is abhorrent.
I will boycott ECW press, and urge all that I know to do the same. ECW will suffer financially by this decision. That you thought fit to print this scum is unbelievable. There goes your reputation.

Despite our own initial doubts about the proposal, having read the author's manuscript, we think the evidence suppressed by the prosecution at trial could have led the jury to a “reasonable doubt” – and a not-guilty verdict.

We would ask you to withhold judgment until you read the book for yourself - and should you wish to not purchase a copy, check with your local library.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.