Hired assassin after husband, walks free

[Wilian]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/justice-sys...free-1.2079731

It’s the plot of a seedy Hollywood thriller.

Nicole Ryan, a small town school teacher from Digby County, N.S, was desperate to escape a loveless marriage.


But rather than go for a divorce, she decided it would be more expedient to have her husband murdered.

So she hired a hit man to kill Mike Ryan for a cool $25,000.

However, the man simply took the money and bolted.

But that didn’t stop the woman, who appeared hell bent on murder. She kept shopping around the county for an assassin, and after two more failed attempts, she reeled in a trigger man. Or at least she thought he had.

Unfortunately for Nicole, and luckily for Mike, the would-be killer turned out to be an undercover RCMP officer posing as a gun for hire.

At a meeting outside a gas station in March 2008, Nicole tells him: “I need the job done. I need it done this weekend.”

The hitman asks about Mike Ryan’s new, 19-year-old girlfriend. “If she’s in the way, is that a problem?” Nicole shakes her head, no.

The undercover cop also asks: “Any beatings? Like did he beat you or anything? Every laid a hand on ya?”


Nicole responds: “No.”

She then tells the cop that she’d been planning the hit for the past seven months. And he elicits a possible motive: Money.

With her husband out of the way, she stands to inherit three properties and his $500,000 military pension. Mike Ryan is worth well over $1,000,000 dead.

Nicole drives to her home in Church Point to get photographs of her husband. She has no idea that she is under secret surveillance by Mounties in unmarked cars.

At the second clandestine meeting hours later, she provides the would-be assassin with photos of her husband’s house, his vehicle, his cell phone number and a physical description of Mike Ryan.

Then within minutes of leaving the car, Nicole Ryan is arrested. The next day, she is taken to court and charged with counselling to commit murder.

A month later, Herbie Boudreau, her father, who allegedly put up the hit money, is also charged with the same offence.

For the prosecution, the case was straight forward. No way they could lose, or at least that’s what they thought.

In the 21 months between her attempt to have her husband killed, and her trial, Nicole Ryan got divorced, reverted to her family name, Doucet, and radically changed her story: levelling allegations against Mike Ryan that had never been heard before. Not by the police, her therapists, or in family court during divorce or custody hearings over their young daughter.

At her trial in 2009, Nicole pleaded not guilty claiming that she had been under duress when she committed the crime. She alleged that Mike Ryan was a violent and abusive husband; and that for nearly 15 years he threatened and bullied her. She swore that he had pinned her up against the wall, squeezed her throat and had put a gun to her head.

She also testified that she was afraid for her herself and for their young daughter, Aimee, adding that the RCMP had ignored her many pleas for protection.

Former RCMP Cpl. Chris Thibeaudeau sat through the trial, stunned at what he was hearing.

“I’m like, first time I hear this. Like we’re like dumbfounded basically,” he told W5 in an interview.

Key figures not called as witnesses

Cpl. Thibeaudeau was the RCMP authority on the file, but was not called to testify. Neither was anyone else on the force.

And neither was the man Nicole portrayed as a monster, her ex-husband Mike Ryan, who was sitting in his car in a nearby parking lot outside the courthouse, waiting to be called as a witness.

“I was very anxious to get on the stand and testify, and rebut anything she had to say,” he told W5. But “I was never called.”

During the three-week trial, Mike Ryan had several conversations with the Crown prosecutor who reassured him that “there’s no way that a judge could not see that she tried to hire a killer

In other words, the case was a slam dunk.

But in March 2010, Justice David Farrar of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court decided: “I have no difficulty in finding that Mr. Ryan was an abusive and manipulative individual,” adding that “the one person that could have rebutted all of these accusations…was Mr. Ryan himself…However, he never gave evidence.”

Then in acquitting the accused, the judge noted that “a reasonable person in the circumstances of Ms. Ryan…would have acted in the same manner.”

Adding insult to injury, the Crown ultimately dropped the charges against Nicole’s co-conspirator, Herbie Boudreau.

Outcome prompts questions

W5 had questions for Peter Craig, the Crown attorney who prosecuted the case. We wanted to know why Mike Ryan was never called to testify. Why the RCMP were not called to testify. And why the charges against Boudreau were withdrawn.

Craig declined W5’s request for an interview but he did provide this written statement: “In the Crown’s view, duress was not established during Ms. Ryan’s testimony and that of other defence witnesses. Therefore, Mike Ryan’s testimony was not required.”

He added that the charge against Nicole’s father was dropped on “a legal technicality” which the Crown declined to explain.

In 2011 the Crown appealed the acquittal to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. But to its dismay, the higher court upheld the lower court’s decision, writing: “It is hard to imagine that, as a teacher with a steady income, support from family and friends, presumed police protection, a divorce in the works and with the last specific threat months before the ‘crime’, she would not have had other avenues of escape.”

Yet the Appeal Court upheld the acquittal.

There was one last hope for the Crown – an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada which, in January 2013, made a stunning reversal ruling that the defence of duress – the only defence Nicole used to justify hiring a hit man to kill her husband, did not apply.

But then in yet another bizarre twist, instead of sending the case back to the Nova Scotia court for a re-trial, the Supreme Court ordered a stay of proceedings, determining that Nicole had suffered enough.

Bottom line: Nicole Doucet can never be tried again for the crime.

The Supreme Court decision not only vilifies Mike Ryan, but the RCMP as well.

In its ruling it noted: “It seems the authorities were much quicker to intervene to protect Mr. Ryan than they had been to respond to her request for help in dealing with his reign of terror over her.”

Cpl. Chris Thibeaudeau’s response: “That’s total baloney.”

The decision prompted the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP to investigate. In July 2013, Ian McPhail, who chairs the Commission, issued a damning report which came to a very different conclusion than the Supreme Court.

The report notes that Nicole Doucet’s statements about the failure of the RCMP to respond to her complaints of abuse “is without basis in fact and negatively impacts Ms. Doucet’s credibility and reliability.”

“We made that statement on the basis that Ms. Doucet had repeatedly denied, not just to the RCMP, but to our investigator, to the undercover officer who she attempted to hire as a hit man that there was any physical abuse,” Mr. McPhail told W5.

“The RCMP not only did their job, they actually…walked the second mile,” he added.

Asked if he felt the justice system was fooled all the way to the Supreme Court, Mr. McPhail said: “It’s a conclusion that a reasonable person might arrive at.”

Mike Ryan now lives in Ontario with Shannon Huntley. They have a three year old son, and in the spring gave birth to a sister for Aimee, now 14. He was awarded full custody of Aimee.

In an effort to clear his name, Mike has taken to the Internet. He has posted a video on YouTube giving his side of the case; a side he never got the chance to give during Nicole Doucet’s trial.

[Deleted]

So a theoretical abuse justifies premeditated murder.

Canadalol.

[Deleted]

So a theoretical abuse justifies premeditated murder.

Canadalol.

this is ridiculous lol

violence there is no evidence of, against planned murder there was evidence of, which one wins? the one with no evidence of course...

[DrStiglit]

I don't understand how they could just ignore the police evidence and rule on a trial where no key witnesses were called. Essentially the judge just listened to the crazy lady and decided to believe her..

And I thought it couldn't get any worse than the US...

[Zethras]

I'm reading this, and i'm thinking "This shit came from Canada?".

[Revi]

What the actual fuck. If that is the full story, I cannot believe something like that can happen.

[lolreally]

I bet there are actually feminists out there going "YEAH TAKE THAT BUDDY SCORE 1 FOR WOMYN!".

It is sad that even murder is overlooked if a woman "cries" false abuse.

[Landin55]

I'm reading this, and i'm thinking "This shit came from Canada?".

This just in its not just America but he whole flipping world that is fucked up.

[Deleted]

If it was any other country I would be suspecting the woman may be involved with the mafia and the judge is paid or afraid to piss off some don.

[Deleted]

Canadians are so nice that they'll hire someone to murder you instead of saying they don't love you.

Truly the nicest people on earth.

[pateuvasiliu]

I'm curious what feminism's response to this is.

Surely this is equality, right?

Only men are guilty and all that?

[endersblade]

That just makes me sick. I read the gist of this to my coworkers, and it seriously pissed some people off. Even the women. Absolutely absurd.

[SqueektheWeek]

If you can pay a hitman, you can probably pay a judge. only explanation I have.

[Chingylol]

Luckiest woman ever. At first I was thinking that she got away because maybe her family were big shots and had money, and could bribe a judge, but the fact that it made it to the Supreme Court and she STILL walked away is pretty crazy.

- - - Updated - - -

If you can pay a hitman, you can probably pay a judge. only explanation I have.

I thought that too but the Supreme court ruled 8-1 not to have her brought to trial again. Would be very hard to bribe 8 people to put their high paying jobs on the line who would put their neck on the line for a school teacher.

[Celista]

I'm curious what feminism's response to this is.

Surely this is equality, right?

Only men are guilty and all that?

Dude. You literally bash feminism in every thread. Can you give it a rest? While it is amusing that you are so intellectually disingenuous regarding your hatred of feminism and SJW's while you champion the cause of men's rights and discuss how oppressed you feel as a Christian despite going to church only once a year, your behavior is starting to border on the pathological.

[pateuvasiliu]

Dude. You literally bash feminism in every thread. Can you give it a rest? While it is amusing that you are so intellectually disingenuous regarding your hatred of feminism and SJW's while you champion the cause of men's rights and discuss how oppressed you feel as a Christian despite going to church only once a year, your behavior is starting to border on the pathological.

Am I not right?

Whenever I bash it you say Feminists are not all the same. Well, okay, I'm giving them a chance to prove it. Where are their blogs stating how disgusted they are at the unequal treatment this woman received?

Can you give it a rest?

No.

I'll speak against Feminism until people either see how much of a joke it's become or it fixes its mess.

You trying to ad hominem me only shows you know I'm right and you're upset by it.


[Infracted]

[Al Gorefiend]

I dont think this will be the last we hear of this.

[Celista]

Am I not right?

Whenever I bash it you say Feminists are not all the same. Well, okay, I'm giving them a chance to prove it. Where are their blogs stating how disgusted they are at the unequal treatment this woman received?

The original post has literally nothing to do with feminism. What is your proof that the court was biased against this woman based on GENDER? If anything it seemed to indicate bias based on the fact that she is 1. a teacher; 2. had a large friends and family network and therefore "had other opportunities to escape". If you are able to prove to me that this case is related to both gender bias and feminism (since the two are separate entities), then perhaps we have something to discuss.

Not everything is about gender politics, you know.

No.

I'll speak against Feminism until people either see how much of a joke it's become or it fixes its mess.

You trying to ad hominem me only shows you know I'm right and you're upset by it.

/eyeroll

Well, keep fighting the good fight, Internet Warrior.

[zealo]

If you can pay a hitman, you can probably pay a judge. only explanation I have.

My thought as well, if you get scammed for 25 000 dollars and is able to try again financially to find someone willing to do it, bribing a judge is probably not out of the possibilities.

[Al Gorefiend]

/eyeroll

Well, keep fighting the good fight, Internet Warrior.

It really makes me sad people try to blame every crime committed by women on feminism. Do people even know what that word means?