Showing posts with label Helen Roberts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Helen Roberts. Show all posts

Saturday, 20 June 2009

Braidwood Inquiry - the shit finally hits the fan.

Up, Down.

Stop the presses! At long last, the grand mucky-muck pooh-bah of the RCMP, William Elliott has spoken:
"The RCMP will not be making further comment on this issue."

Such arrogance may never be seen again from an RCMP Commissioner, until, that is, they can Taser you for speaking out. (but I am willing to bet that they will indeed have more to say, lots more, when they are finally forced to tell the truth :-)

William Elliott RCMPWilliam Elliott RCMPWilliam Elliott RCMPWilliam Elliott RCMP: His teeth, I've enacted, Shall all be extracted, By terrified amateurs. W. S. Gilbert, The Mikado
Cartoons from, and thanks to: Gaping Void & The Nonconformer, and the original Pooh-Bah from Gilbert & Sullivan's The Mikado.

PS: wait a minute here! what is needed is something to corroborate Dick Bent's email, it won't likely be another email BUT it might just be Paul Pritchard, check this out: The Braidwood Chronicles: the Pritchard factor on Dawg's Blawg.

you may be a business man of some high degree, they may call you Doctor, they may call you Chief, but you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed, you're gonna have to serve somebody

in case you missed the story: Cops planned to Taser Dziekanski: RCMP memo / Inquiry adjourned until Sept. 22, complete with the text of the email, and, Federal government lawyer Helen Roberts' statement (aka, the Official Reply).

the only problem is that it may not be real enough shit ... they will all bail on Dick Bent - he's toast, he was "mistaken" or simply "wrong," and since what he says bears no resemblance to the rest of the lies they have been telling ... maybe it will wash ...

I am wondering why they let it out? (it was the RCMP who informed their Lawyer, Helen Roberts about the 'oversight') the obvious motivation is that they were afraid that it might leak out later so they tried to steal their own thunder so to speak, but why would they think it would necessarily leak out? unless they know or they guess that there is someone in the inside who is about to blow the whistle? maybe even more than one? man, if 50 of 'em did it we could put them back on the fifty dollar bill eh?


Just when you thought the reputation of our national police force couldn't sink any lower comes news of the existence of an internal RCMP e-mail that contradicts the sworn testimony of the four Mounties involved in the fatal confrontation with Mr. Dziekanski.

        Gary Mason, Globe and Mail, Saturday June 20 2009.

who ARE these people?
where did they come from?
what country do they live in?


Richard C. (Dick) Bent is a prairie boy who moved to the big cities (see bio below), remember that it was Bent who tried to whack Mike Webster's pee-pee when Mike stepped out of line (in the RCMP's and in Bent's own estimation) but Mike Webster would not be cowed;

Al Macintyre, aka Alastair Donald Macintyre, I don't know about - a 35 year man according to the Braidwood transcripts, still looking for something more detailed, he was definitely on-side for the killing of Ian Bush, you can see him on one of the pictures holding up pictures of Paul Koester:
Dick Bent RCMPDick Bent RCMPDick Bent RCMPDick Bent RCMPAl MacIntyre RCMPAl MacIntyre RCMPAl MacIntyre RCMPAl MacIntyre RCMP
Wayne Rideout also don't know anything yet except what he looks like:
Wayne Rideout, Al MacIntyre RCMPWayne Rideout RCMPWayne Rideout RCMPWayne Rideout RCMPWayne Rideout RCMPWayne Rideout RCMPWayne Rideout RCMPWayne Rideout RCMP
and another Little Bo Peep, Helen Roberts, a lawyer, a woman moved to tears by something, I wonder moved by what? because she was caught out? because she would rather be on the other side? who can say? from her statement below, we can see that she is resourceful and competent, at least the second time around she is, trying to make a plausible argument and more-or-less succeeding ... except of course that it is all bullshit lawyer's talk & bafflegab:
Helen Roberts RCMPHelen Roberts RCMPHelen Roberts RCMPHelen Roberts RCMPHelen Roberts RCMPHelen Roberts RCMPHelen Roberts RCMPHelen Roberts RCMP





***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
Appendices:
1. Commission and public deserve an explanation, Gary Mason, Saturday June 20 2009.
2. 2008 Bio of Dick Bent, The Society for the Policing of Cyberspace (POLCYB).
3. Federal government lawyer Helen Roberts' statement, June 19, 2009.
4. Cops planned to Taser Dziekanski: RCMP memo, Neal Hall, June 19, 2009.
5. William Elliott's statement on the Braidwood inquiry, June 19, 2009.
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
Note: This article is not in the regular Globe website for some reason, so I had to lift it from the Globe Plus site where they post pdfs (ugh!) of every page.

Commission and public deserve an explanation, Gary Mason, Saturday June 20 2009.

The death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski is threatening to engulf the RCMP in one of the biggest scandals in its history.

Just when you thought the reputation of our national police force couldn't sink any lower comes news of the existence of an internal RCMP e-mail that contradicts the sworn testimony of the four Mounties involved in the fatal confrontation with Mr. Dziekanski.

Federal government lawyer Helen Roberts, representing the RCMP, seemed unable to explain why the November, 2007, e-mail surfaced only now, as lawyers involved in the inquiry were set to begin their final submissions. Ms. Roberts cried as she apologized for the oversight.

Meantime, former judge Thomas Braidwood, who is heading the inquiry, fumed. He was appalled by the omission and he should have been. The e-mail's existence, and the provocative and potentially explosive claim it contained, temporarily threw the inquiry into chaos.

So what to do?

It looks like the four officers will be called back to explain on the stand the discrepancy in their testimony, delaying a final commission report, possibly for months.

All four officers had testified that they had no plan as they headed towards the airport to respond to a call of a distressed male behaving violently. The officers said they had decided to taser Mr. Dziekanski only after deciding that the travel-weary, unarmed man posed a threat to their personal safety.

But in a Nov. 5, 2007, e-mail from Chief Superintendent Dick Bent, a senior member of the force, to his superior, RCMP Assistant Commissioner Al Macintyre, a different picture emerges.

Chief Supt. Bent wrote that, in a conversation with Superintendent Wayne Rideout, the officer in charge of the investigation into Mr. Dziekanski's death, it was revealed that the four officers "had discussed the response en route and decided that if he [the distressed man] did not comply that they would go to CEW [conducted energy weapon]."

In other words, they had decided early on to use the taser.

Their actions were premeditated.

Lawyers representing the four officers said yesterday that Chief Supt. Bent got it wrong. The officers insist no such conversation occurred.

And we're supposed to believe them.

The same officers who told RMCP investigators immediately after the incident that they had tasered Mr. Dziekanski only twice, when video evidence would later show it was five times. Who said Mr. Dziekanski was putting up a fight when they decided to taser him successive times, when the video showed the poor man writhing in pain, fighting for his life after he was zapped the first time.

The same Mounties whose testimony provoked calls of a cover-up inside the force.

Supt. Rideout is also saying Chief Supt. Bent got it wrong.

And we're supposed to believe him.

The same Supt. Rideout who admitted on the stand that it was his decision not to correct wrong information the RCMP gave the public about the circumstances of Mr. Dziekanski's death because it might somehow compromise the "integrity of criminal investigation."

The same lead investigator who didn't think it might be a good idea to go back and re-interview the four officers after video surfaced that contradicted the almost-identical statements each offered to the RCMP about what happened. (Even though all four insisted they never talked among one another about what they might tell investigators.) Good lord.

Chief Supt. Bent is now saying he doesn't remember the conversation with Supt. Rideout. I guess not. And I guess we're supposed to just accept that. Pretend it never happened. Something that Chief Supt. Bent made up, I guess. What a disgrace. And you know, he'll get away with saying that too. He is a member in good standing of the old boys' club that runs the RCMP. He won't get thrown under the bus.

The contents of the memo aside, I'm dying to know why news of the e-mail didn't surface until yesterday. Helen Thomas, she of the tearful apology, couldn't say what happened. There was some explanation about it being on a CD-ROM that didn't get looked at. Such a key piece of information? Didn't alarms go off somewhere, maybe inside the RCMP, when the officers were saying one thing on the stand and an e-mail was floating around that said something entirely differently?

Why didn't someone step forward well before now and alert commission lawyers to the oversight?

Did someone think the e-mail could be kept secret? Did Ms. Thomas hand it over to commission counsel only because it was going to come out some other way?

What happened? Not only does the inquiry deserve an explanation but the public does too.

This is scary stuff.


***************************************************************************
2008 Bio of Dick Bent, The Society for the Policing of Cyberspace (POLCYB).

Chief Superintendent Richard C. (Dick) Bent
Deputy Criminal Operations Officer -
Community, Contract and Aboriginal Policing Services
Royal Canadian Mounted Police “E” Division
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Born in Saskatchewan, Dick Bent joined the RCMP in 1974. After completing basic training he was transferred to Alberta where he served in a variety of roles for twenty years.

After working in general duties and traffic roles in a number of detachments throughout Alberta, he was transferred to Division Headquarters in Edmonton where he worked in the Complaints and Internal Investigation Section and then Major Crimes as a Team Leader.

In 1993 Dick was transferred in charge of a Sub/Division General Investigation Section responsible for all serious crime investigations in the Peace River region of Alberta.

In 1994, he was promoted to the rank of Inspector in Nova Scotia where he worked in planning the 1995 G7 Summit in Halifax, in the Staffing and Personnel Section, and finally as the Officer In Charge of the Federal Policing Branch for the Province of Nova Scotia.

In 1997, he was transferred to the RCMP National Headquarters in Ottawa where he gained exposure in a number of areas including the Finance, Commissioner’s Secretariat, Criminal Intelligence, and Community, Contract and Aboriginal Policing Directorates. He then worked for two years in Executive/Officer Development and Resourcing.

In 2002, Dick was promoted to the rank of Chief Superintendent and transferred to the position of the Deputy Criminal Operations Officer in British Columbia responsible for all Federal Policing in the province.

In 2005, Dick assumed his current role as the Deputy Criminal Operations Officer in British Columbia responsible for Community, Contract and Aboriginal Policing in the province.


***************************************************************************
Federal government lawyer Helen Roberts' statement, June 19, 2009.

Statement presented by counsel for the Government of Canada, Helen Roberts, to Justice Braidwood, commissioner of the Braidwood Commission of Inquiry:

You are likely now aware, Mr. Commissioner, as counsel for the participants are already aware, that Counsel for Canada mistakenly overlooked providing documents earlier in response to a request from Commission counsel for documents relating to the RCMP media strategy. Jan Brongers and I learned about the omission on Monday, advised Commission counsel of this on Tuesday and provided those documents to Commission counsel on a CD-ROM on Wednesday.

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to sincerely apologize to you, Mr. Commissioner, to Commission counsel, to counsel for the participants, and to the participants themselves for the inconvenience. Canada continues, as it has all along, to fully support the work of this Commission.

I would like to add that both the CBSA and the RCMP have been fully cooperative in providing documents to us for disclosure purposes. In this, they have been guided by counsel. Any concerns about document production properly lie with counsel.

Among the documents that had been overlooked is an RCMP e-mail that we anticipated would be of interest to the Commission. That was an e-mail from C/Supt. Bent to Asst. Commr. Macintyre. The e-mail was provided separately to Commission counsel and to counsel for all of the participants on Tuesday. We did not locate any other e-mails that contained similar information.

It is the third paragraph of the e-mail that is of interest. C/Supt. Bent wrote: "Finally, spoke to Wayne and he indicated that the members did not articulate that they saw the symptoms of excited delirium, but instead had discussed the response en route and decided that if he did not comply that they would go to CEW."

Wayne is Supt. Rideout, who has already testified at this Inquiry. CEW is of course a conducted energy weapon or taser.

We have interviewed both C/Supt. Bent and Asst. Commr. Macintyre to find out their evidence about this e-mail. C/Supt. Bent has advised us as follows:

1. The e-mail was sent because Dep.Commr. Bass had asked whether the members had used the CEW because they believed Mr. Dziekanski was exhibiting signs of excited delirium. He understood the question was being asked because RCMP policy then suggested the use of CEWs to restrain persons exhibiting signs of excited delirium, so that restraint could be effected as quickly as possible and medical attention then sought.

2. He sent an e-mail to C/Supt. McGowan asking for a synopsis of the members' accounts, and "especially, why the CEW member went to taser right away".

3. He spoke to Supt. Rideout, who advised the members did not report observing signs of excited delirium.

4. His e-mail indicates that he understood Supt. Rideout to say that the members "had discussed the response en route and decided that if he did not comply that they would go to CEW".

5. He has no recollection of the conversation with Supt. Rideout at this time.

6. Given the flurry of activity at the time, it is entirely possible that he misunderstood what he was told.

7. He has checked other e-mails sent and received around the time, and has no other e-mails that shed any light on this.

8. He has no notes of the conversation with Supt. Rideout.

9. He did not receive any other information suggesting the members had formulated a plan to use the CEW prior to arriving at the airport.

Asst. Commr. Macintyre has advised as follows:

1. The question originated with Dep. Commr. Bass. He passed on the question to C/Supt. McGowan and copied others, including C/Supt. Bent.

2. He received the e-mail from C/Supt. Bent.

3. He received no other information suggesting that the members discussed the response en route and had a plan.

4. He did not respond to C/Supt. Bent's e-mail.

Supt. Rideout was also interviewed and I understand Mr. Pringle will speak to Supt. Rideout's recollection.

As you are aware, the four members who attended the airport all testified that they did not formulate a plan prior to their encounter with Mr. Dziekanski. Indeed they were criticized for not formulating a plan. The only thing that was said was Cst. Bentley's question as to whether any of the officers was carrying a taser and Cst. Millington's response.

The IHIT file has been searched, and there is no evidence that the members formulated a plan to use the taser prior to the encounter with Mr. Dziekanski.

It is our conclusion from these interviews that C/Supt. Bent misunderstood information provided by Supt. Rideout.

However, if you wish to hear from C/Supt. Bent and/or Asst. Commr. Macintyre, we have asked them to stand by so as not to delay the Inquiry. They are available to attend the Inquiry to testify about the e-mail on 10 minutes' notice. They will however not be able to testify today about other matters without an opportunity to prepare and consult counsel.

Once Canada submitted an application for, and was granted, participant status, Canada provided RCMP documents to Commission counsel. It shared the Reports to Crown Counsel and the evidence generated by the IHIT investigation, including statements, photographs, videotapes, experts' reports and records seized from other agencies. It was my understanding — and this has been fortified by your comments during the Inquiry - that it is not part of your mandate to examine the IHIT investigation itself. For that reason, documents generated by the IHIT investigators during the course of the investigation, such as e-mails, task reports and notebook entries, were not shared — except in the case of Cst. Hoivik, where Commission counsel expressly requested his notes, and these were produced as they were relevant to his evidence about the seizure of exhibits and his sketch of the scene.

In addition to the evidence generated by the IHIT investigation, Commission counsel requested, and were provided with, the media advisories prepared by Sgt. Lemaitre and Cpl. Carr, the notes made by Cpl. Carr, and the notes and e-mails of Supt. Rideout. It was by oversight that they were not provided earlier with the other RCMP media strategy documents.

It is our understanding that we have now provided the Commission with all of the CBSA and RCMP documents that are relevant to your mandate. That being said, we welcome hearing from Commission counsel if you feel there are other kinds of documents that would be of assistance to you in preparing your report. Canada is now and has always been fully supportive of the Inquiry and will do its utmost to assist you.

Thank you.


***************************************************************************
Cops planned to Taser Dziekanski: RCMP memo, Neal Hall, June 19, 2009.

Inquiry adjourned until Sept. 22

VANCOUVER — An e-mail found last week that sheds light on possible misconduct by senior RCMP officers has thrown the Braidwood inquiry into the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski into disarray.

The e-mail, sent by RCMP Chief Supt. Dick Bent to RCMP deputy commissioner Al Macintyre, suggests for the first time that the four Mounties who responded to a call at the Vancouver International Airport planned to use a Taser against Dziekanski — contrary to what they testified during the inquiry.

Dziekanski, 40, died after being hit five times with a Taser by RCMP officers in October 2007.

The e-mail, dated Nov. 5, 2007, said: "Finally, spoke to Wayne (Rideout) and he indicated that the members did not articulate that they saw the symptoms of excited delirium, but instead had discussed the response en route and decided that if he did not comply that they would go to CEW (conducted energy weapon).

"He has asked investigators for a synopsis and should have it by noon tomorrow."

Supt. Rideout is the former commanding officer in charge of investigating Dziekanski's death.

Lawyer Helen Roberts, who represents the RCMP, broke into tears as she told retired judge Thomas Braidwood, who is heading the inquiry, that her office received the e-mail in late April but never opened the CD for the document files until last week.

"I do say, it was by oversight that this occurred," she said. "Canada continues, as it has all along, to fully support the work of this commission."

Roberts said Bent was mistaken in his e-mail and that the officers did not formulate a plan to use the Taser as soon as possible.

"As a result of (our office's discovery) of this e-mail . . . the IHIT (Integrated Homicide Investigation Team) file has been searched and there is no evidence in the IHIT file that the members formulated a plan to use the Taser prior to the encounter with Mr. Dziekanski," Roberts said.

"It is our conclusion from these interviews that Chief Supt. Bent must have misunderstood information provided to him by Supt. Rideout."

The lawyers for the four RCMP officers said their clients deny they formulated a plan to Taser Dziekanski.

RCMP Commissioner William Elliott echoed Robert's statement that the e-mail was not released to the inquiry due to an "oversight." "Unfortunately in an exercise of this magnitude, such an oversight can occur," Elliott said in a news release Friday. He said the RCMP will "continue to co-operate fully with the inquiry."

Braidwood decided the e-mail will require new testimony, so he adjourned the inquiry until Sept. 22.

"I find the delay in disclosing this material to the commission to be appalling," he said.

Commission counsel Art Vertlieb said the late disclosure of the e-mail as evidence had resulted in a "complete disruption of the process."

"It's a stunning turn of events," Don Rosenbloom, the lawyer representing the government of Poland at the inquiry, told reporters after the commissioner ordered the adjournment.

"The documents that have just come to our attention include a critical e-mail from very high up in the RCMP chain of command, disclosing that the officers decided in a premeditated way, 'en route' to the scene, to use the Taser if Mr. Dziekanski did not comply."

Rosenbloom said the 11th-hour disclosure "is totally inconsistent with testimony given under oath." He added the e-mail goes to the heart of the issue of police fabrication. During the hearing, he said, "We were alleging they (the four Mounties involved in the airport incident) were fabricating their story."

The inquiry was supposed to have ended its public hearings on Friday.

Dziekanski, who did not speak English, had been travelling for more than 24 hours when he died. He had been in the airport for more than nine hours, looking for his mother.

***************************************************************************
This is the transcript, in its entirety, of the e-mail that was read out at the Braidwood inquiry June 19, and which led to an adjournment until September.

E-mail sent Nov. 5, 2007
From: Dick (Richard) Bent — 'Media Strategy — Release of the YVR Video'
To: Al Macintyre

Al, spoke with Wayne Rideout today about our strategy for the release of the video. He had a couple of concerns.

First, he didn't think we should be providing any explanation for what was transpiring but instead just say the inquest will take evidence under oath, etc. I went through the rationale and said we need to have an explanation otherwise our detractors will put their own spin.

Second, as we're going to have someone speak to this, he suggest that it should be someone other than (RCMP spokesman Cpl.) Dale Carr otherwise we may lose the perception of independence. He would rather have someone separate from IHIT (Integrated Homicide Investigation Team) do this. We both think a use of force expert would be ideal. Gregg Gillis has not been involved in this investigation so is independent. I suggest we have Gregg do the narrative of what is happening.

Finally, spoke to Wayne and he indicated that the members did not articulate that they saw the symptoms of excited delirium, but instead had discussed the response en route and decided that if he did not comply that they go to CEW (Conducted Energy Weapon commonly known as Taser). He had asked investigators for a synopsis and should have it by noon tomorrow.

(Signed) Dick


***************************************************************************
William Elliott's statement on the Braidwood inquiry, June 19, 2009.

B.C. - RCMP Commissioner makes statement about Braidwood Inquiry

The Commissioner of the RCMP, William Elliott, wishes to make the following statement regarding today's events at the Braidwood Inquiry:

- From the outset, the RCMP has cooperated fully and participated fully in the Inquiry.

- We have produced thousands of documents to our legal counsel for their review and for them to transmit all relevant material to the Commission.

- Commissioner Braidwood was informed that a specific document was not provided and he himself accepted the Government of Canada's sincere apologies for this oversight.

- This was simply an oversight. Unfortunately in an exercise of this magnitude, such an oversight can occur.

- It was the RCMP, working with our legal counsel, who brought this oversight and this document to the attention of the Commission.

- The Commission indicates that it will thoroughly look into the matter, including into the relevance, if any, of the specific document, about which there are significant questions.

- The RCMP is as disappointed as all of the parties involved in this inquiry that there will be a delay in the completion of the Inquiry as a result of this unfortunate development.

- We will continue to cooperate fully with the Inquiry. The RCMP wants all of the facts surrounding this tragic event to be known so that we can learn as much as possible and make any further required changes to the RCMP's policies and practices.

The RCMP will not be making further comment on this issue.



***************************************************************************




***************************************************************************


Down.

Wednesday, 27 May 2009

Braidwood Inquiry, testimony ends

Up, Down.

maybe Thomas Braidwood will have something to say "by the fall," say, October 14? that would be two years ... two years of travail which could have been made unnecessary by the merest display of honour by any single one of the RCMP goon squad, that's to say any one of the some 25,000 of them walking around, disgraceful!

meanwhile, in late June there will be "final submissions" by Ravi Hira and David Butcher and Reg Harris and Helen Roberts, and such like dishonourable maggots in defence of their dishonourable maggoty client viz. the Government of Canada in its daemonic incarnation as the RCMP, not clear if this folderol will be published with the Braidwood Site transcripts


Taser inquiry testimony ends, Stunning attitude, Police could have avoided inquiry - lawyer.

speaking of maggots, here's another one, Grant Fredericks, a "forensic video expert," another Taser International shill spinning desperate and far-fetched lies and fabrications to shore up the official RCMP lies, pardon me, LIES(!):

Obey, Andre the Giant Shepard, FaireyGrant FredericksGrant FredericksGrant FredericksObey, Cop the Batter

Fredericks is closely associated with LEVA (Law Enforcement & Emergency Services Video Association), who count among their Corporate Sponsors (surprise, surprise), Taser International, Inc., well to remember that some people will say anything if you pay them, this Grant Fredericks fellow is not only an "expert" but is apparently "a pioneer in forensic video analysis," you can watch him lying at the CBC Dziekanski site, Thomas Braidwood, God bless his heart, does not seem to be buying what the BBB (baffle-their-brains-with-bullshit) crowd are selling

and thank goodness that there is the odd honourable one in the bunch, here is Mike Webster's recent letter to the Braidwood Commission: (I have posted his previous testimony here: Braidwood Transcript)


Mike WebsterMike WebsterMike WebsterMike Webster

April 17,2009

Braidwood Commissions of Inquiry
Art Vertlieb QC
Commission Counsel
980-T500 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, B.C.
V6G 2Z6

Dear Mr. Vertlieb,

You have asked me for my opinion in the case of the death of Robert Dziekanski that is before the Braidwood Commissions of Inquiry. I am a Registered Psychologist (in private practice) that has worked in the area of police psychology for over 30 years. I completed basic police training at the RCMP Training Academy (Depot Division) in 1988. I specialize in the area of crisis management and have experience in the application offeree across a broad array of police tasks including: hostage/barricade incidents; kidnappings; incidents of public disorder; and crisis intervention. I have been instrumental in the creation and delivery of crisis intervention, crisis negotiation, and incident command courses from the Canadian Police College (Ottawa, Ontario) to the B.C Police Academy (New Westminster, B.C.). I have been an adjunct lecturer at the FBI 'Gaining Academy. I have consulted internationally with several law enforcement agencies including: Colombia, Mexico, Singapore, Brazil, the United Arab Emerates, Hungary, Iceland, Sweden, Australia, and Europol. I have consulted operationally at a variety of incidents including: the old BC Penitentiary (hostage takings); Waco, Texas; Gustafsen Lake, B.C.; Jordan, Montana; Ft. Davis, Texas; the G8; the G20; Apex Alpine; and numerous kidnappings from Iraq to Indonesia, and Kashmir to Colombia. I am familiar with both Use of Force Models; the RCMP's Integrated Model of Incident Management and the National Use of Force Framework.

In forming my opinions I have reviewed the following materials:

• Transcripts on 2 dispatch calls (DRIP Dl 3.WAWD RIP D I 5.WAV)
• Transcripts on hearings dated February 23, February 24, February 25, February 26, March 2, March 3, and March 4; and, March 23, March 24, and March 25 2009
• Robert Dzfekanski - Circumstances; and,
• The Pritchard Video and enhanced audio by Sharpe.
In my opinion the RCMP members mishandled this call and responded inappropriately in the following ways:

i. Only "Fools Rush In"

All the RCMP members agreed in their evidence that this was an unusual call. It should have been apparent to them that it would require a different approach than their usual general duty fare. Mr. Dziekanski wasn't going anywhere and none of the public was in immediate danger. It is difficult to believe that Cpl. Robinson, nor any of his members, had a plan. (All Use of Force models begin with some form of "assess-plan-act")- It is equally difficult to believe that he would have left the "lead" or "contact" position to such junior members, considering the nature of the call.

A well trained and well experienced NCO i/c would remember to take a moment to formulate a plan. (In their basic training these members would have heard me old adage "if you fail to plan, you plan to fail" many times from their instructors). In my opinion, he would have "verbally contained" Mr. Dziekanski after putting the "rule of ate" (or whatever ft was called in his training) into motion. The rule is: "locate", "isolate", "evacuate", "communicate". The subject had already been located. One of the members could have been dispatched to the Customs Hall to ensure no one was allowed to enter the IRL (subject isolated), while another evacuated the public from the area (scene evacuated). Now the "contact" member could take bis time to communicate with a hyperarouscd subject.
ii. "Low and Slow"

I'm sure these members in then1 basic police training had some conflict resolution instruction. Part of that instruction would have focused on how it's much easier to increase the intensity of approach than decrease it On a scale of 1-10 it's much easier to come in at a 3 or 4 and then increase if need be. It's next to impossible to come in at an 8 or 9 and then expect to defuse an emotionally distraught individual. Vaulting the railing (not one but all four) was inconsistent with coining in "low" and creating a safe non-threatening environment (which they should also know from their training is the best way to calm an agitated individual).

One more thing they would have learned in their conflict resolution training was the ability to put themselves in someone else's shoes (i.e. to empathize). Not one of the members appeared to have placed himself in Mr. Dziekanski's shoes and considered how, in his state of hyperarousal (fear?) Mr. Dziekanski would have perceived four heavily armed policemen jumping a barrier to get to (at?) him.
iii. "Too Many Cooks ..... "

In their basic training, likely during conflict resolution and arrest procedures instruction, these members would have been informed about the interaction between arousal and cognitive process. They would have learned that during hyperarousal someone's cognitive process is disrupted and disorganized. They would have been told that a highly aroused person does not process instructions well, can't make good decisions, doesnt use good judgment, and is not a good problem solver. In other words, they should have known that Mr. Dzjekanski (language difficulties aside) would not be able to respond to them until he bad been calmed down. UK fact that, at feast, two different sets of instructions were given to him, each inconsistent with the other, would have served to bom confuse and frustrate him.
iv. "First Impressions...."

As put of their basic training these members would have learned (conflict resolution basics) dial before you get someone else under control you must get yourself under control. This means using neutral, non-threatening body postures and calm, non-confrontational tones. These members had this situation resolved when they first arrived (despite vaulting the barrier). Just like it's supposed to, "presence" and "communication'' worked like a charm. Mr. Dziekanski dropped his hands to his sides and engaged the "contact'' member. Everything they did after that was absolutely inconsistent with their conflict resolution training. Following the contrary commands came the pointing of (at least one) black leather clad finger. I understand that these "slash" gloves are worn for protection but they could (put yourself in Mr. Dziekanski's shoes) be interpreted as threatening by a frightened individual If you were faced by policemen with bare hands, hats, ties, and concealed body armour alongside the four members in question which would you turn to for help?
v. "Circle the Wagons"

Once again "put yourself in the subject's shoes", what do you think that a man in a state of hyperarousal (likely frightened by what has transpired to this point) is going to think when surrounded by four policemen with their hands hovering around their duly belts? (I believe the Taser had been unholstered by this time and he may have caught a glimpse of it). What would ever make us think that this would calm him down or allow us to control him? During their training these members would have been taught that the genesis of human behaviour is interactional not dispositional (perhaps different words were used but the idea was the same). The notion that Mr. Dziekanski was in charge and trie police were responding to him is illogical and unscientific. Mr. Dziekanski and the police were locked in a dance of behaviours and responses; each being influenced by and influencing the other all at the same time. People will respond reactively to the use of "heavy tactics". Trapping someone (especially a frightened someone) in a circle is bound to stimulate defensive behaviours. If the four policemen had done something different, chances are Mr. Dziekanski would have responded differently. And no, it would not be Mr. Dzieksnskj's responsibility to calm down first and create a different dance. He is the "client". The police are the authorities and it is their responsibility to change the dance and take control (they are trained and he isn't).
vi. "Is it, or isn't it?"

One final comment. There has been much discussion both in and outside these proceedings with regard to the stapler as a weapon. While I believe that anything can be used asa weapon, it is interesting that not everyone (including police people) regard the danger posed by the stapler in the same way. During the proceedings those who see the stapler as a credible threat have focused on the policemens' perceptions, and quite rightly have stated that the policemens' perceptions were their reality. I want to point out that perception and tactical considerations are inter-related (in all use of force models). These concepts hold equal status in the models. Tactical considerations, in this case, would include such factors as containment, position, backup, proximity of the public, police tools available, condition of the subject, and nature of his weapon. In my opinion, the tactical considerations during this incident were significantly in favour of the police. Arguably this could make the deployment of the Taser an excessive use of force. In light of the "one-plus-one" rule it could be argued that there was no reasonable relationship between the degree of threat and the amount offeree applied to it. The amount offeree applied was "precise" in nature rather than proportionate to the threat, Moreover, these tactical considerations emphasize the excessive nature of the multiple taserings, following the first (that took Mr. Dziekanski to ground), in both the probe and drive stun modes.
Thank you for consulting me on this matter. I hope these opinions will be of assistance.

Sincerely,
Dr. Mike Webster
Centurion Consulting Services Ltd.

[Note: this letter came to me as a pdf which I re-formatted to HTML using OCR. So, there may be some OCR typos I have not caught, and while the overall paragraph structure is consistent with the original, the actual presentation and spacing is a bit different - apologies, this technology is really, well, the word for it is 'the shits.']


***************************************************************************
Stunning attitude, North Shore News, May 27, 2009.

AS the inquiry into the Tasering death of Robert Dziekanski enters its final stages, it is hard to imagine what more the RCMP and its supporters could do to hurt their own officers.

Over the past several weeks, the force has offered up witness after witness whose purpose appears to be to defend the institution's good name. Each has succeeded in doing the opposite.

First there was the officer who claimed Dziekanski's stapler was a threat to the public. Then there was the superintendent who said allowing the media to be misled about the number of jolts was good for the investigation. Now, in testimony this week, we have an "expert" who claims the video of the incident showed Dziekanski moving toward the police. That expert, it would seem, is a former Vancouver police officer with no formal training in photogrammetry and whose organization counts Taser International among its sponsors.

Each of these witnesses, in attempting to justify a series of grievous missteps by those involved, has succeeded only in further damaging the institution's reputation. Instead of simply accepting responsibility and vowing to do better, the force is seen to be suppressing the truth and defending the negligent in its own self-interest.

In doing so, the RCMP's management is betraying its own members. Frontline officers rely on the trust and respect of the general public to do their jobs. The institution is undermining both.

The force must stop making excuses, take its lumps and move on -- if for no other reason than to help itself.


***************************************************************************
Taser inquiry testimony ends, May 27, 2009.

VANCOUVER - The public inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski, which heard compelling testimony from the Mounties involved in his death and airport visitors who witnessed the tragic incident, ended with a bit of a whimper Tuesday as the last witness took the stand.

Engineer Duane MacInnis testified that amateur video taken of Dziekanski moments before he was stunned with an RCMP Taser could not be used to support the force’s claim that the Polish man was advancing on officers.

With that, the proceedings were adjourned until June 19 when closing arguments will be heard. A final report by commissioner Thomas Braidwood is expected in the fall.

Dziekanski died on the floor of Vancouver’s airport in October 2007 after he was shocked multiple times by an RCMP Taser.

He had wandered around the customs hall for hours, looking for his mother after arriving from Poland to start a new life in Canada.

Police were summoned to deal with Dziekanski after he began throwing furniture in the arrivals area of the airport. He was jolted by the Taser within seconds of their arrival on the scene.

The inquiry, which heard from more than 80 witnesses and stretched beyond four months, heard conflicting views about what actually caused Dziekanski’s death and about the actions of RCMP and airport officials.

The four officers each told the inquiry they tried to calm the man, but he came at them with a stapler. They repeatedly stunned him on the ground because, they said, he was fighting back.


***************************************************************************
Police could have avoided inquiry - lawyer, May 27, 2009.

Robert Dziekanski's mother, the public and law enforcement could have been spared a lengthy public inquiry if RCMP officers had only admitted they made mistakes shortly after the Polish immigrant's death, a lawyer said Tuesday as the Braidwood Inquiry neared an end.

I think that the public expected a proper and heartfelt apology to the family," said lawyer Don Rosenbloom, representing the Polish government at the inquiry, which wrapped up four months of testimony Thursday.

Had they come forward and been forthright in acknowledging that they had done wrong at the time, this wouldn't have been the story that it is . . . none of us would have been here."

Dziekanski came to Canada as a landed immigrant in October 2007, but he never made it out of Vancouver International Airport. The inquiry has heard Dziekanski spent hours wandering around the immigration hall and arrivals area of the airport, never connecting with his mother, who had come to meet him.

Dziekanski died after he was hit with an RCMP Taser weapon multiple times after being confronted by four officers.

The inquiry has exposed questions like why the officers' accounts of the events appear to differ in key ways from an eyewitness video; and why the RCMP a year to correct misinformation released after the event.

The many lawyers involved in the inquiry will reconvene in mid-June to make their final submissions. A final report, including any recommendations from Commissioner Thomas Braidwood, could take months.

Down.