OOPS! The evidence is gone...

[FTA Lawyer]

To say that this is too convenient is quite the understatement:

Evidence Erased

When a client of mine has a recording of evidence that supports their innocence, I preserve it. I make multiple copies and secure them in separate locations and quite simply, I do not permit an "inadvertant" erasing of the evidence. I do this even for petty charges like parking tickets.

Now, CBSA has a guy dead in an airport after inexplicably being there for hours and then being tasered, with massive public attention brought to the situation and they would have us believe that no one took a single due dilligence step to preserve the original recordings?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Oh, but don't worry, it's okay because a CBSA guy reviewed all of the originals before they were erased, and trust him, there was nothing of significance on the erased portions.

THIS IS ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not only should the public demand firings at high-up levels of the CBSA over this, but there should be criminal investigations into possible obstruction of justice / evidence tampering or possibly criminal negligence charges.

This is not okay.

What these emails suggest is that, knowing there is an automatic erase function on the surveilance tapes (but apparently not knowing if it was after 16 or 7 days...kind of important) the CBSA guys pulled a copy for their officer to review, BUT MADE NO OTHER COPIES. Then, their guy cuts and pastes the sections he likes and all of the rest is disappeared for eternity.

Then, as if they are surprised that someone is requesting a copy of the tapes, they reveal OOPS! we had them but don't anymore...sorry!

I simply cannot believe this. This kind of demonstrated ability would not permit these people to hold jobs as greeters at Wal-Mart (and I apologize to Wal-Mart greeters for even mentioning them in the same sentence as the CBSA at this point).

FTA

[guyser]

Colour me surprised.

I have seen this time and again, perhaps not only in this country, but it is relatively rampant in the police and security business.

Rest assured, if the Polish guy was actually assaulting an officer you can bet that video would have been well preserved.

Perhaps we could institute a law much like parking garages have in this city (although not really a law) . It is the one that states should you lose your ticket (the video) then you pay the maximum rate for the entire day (go to jail).

It seems as if the more cops/CBSA are in the wrong the more likely the tape will either disappear or be altered in a favourable light. Perhaps I only hear about the ones that do get altered, but I doubt it. It does seem rampant.

I read recently that the RCMP tazed this guy within 90 seconds of meeting him. Also, someone who works at the airport has sworn that he talked to the guy , in Polish, and that everything was okay with him and the situation. He understood the man was waiting to be picked up but did not seem stressed nor out of it as some had suggested.

If nothing else, his mother should become very rich at the hands of the RCMP, and ultimately the taxpayor. I sure hope so.

And the officers and the guy who erased the tape should all be on the unemployment line.

[Wilber]

Smells like bullshit to me as well.

[Argus]

To say that this is too convenient is quite the understatement:

Evidence Erased

When a client of mine has a recording of evidence that supports their innocence, I preserve it. I make multiple copies and secure them in separate locations and quite simply, I do not permit an "inadvertant" erasing of the evidence. I do this even for petty charges like parking tickets.

Now, CBSA has a guy dead in an airport after inexplicably being there for hours and then being tasered, with massive public attention brought to the situation and they would have us believe that no one took a single due dilligence step to preserve the original recordings?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Oh, but don't worry, it's okay because a CBSA guy reviewed all of the originals before they were erased, and trust him, there was nothing of significance on the erased portions.

THIS IS ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not only should the public demand firings at high-up levels of the CBSA over this, but there should be criminal investigations into possible obstruction of justice / evidence tampering or possibly criminal negligence charges.

Let's consider what was on these tapes: Hours and hours and hours and hours of people walking back and forth, sitting down, standing in lines, and reading magazines. Here and there are clips of the Polish guy for a minute or two, leaning against a wall, sitting on a chair, looking out the window, buying a coke, perhaps. The original video was reviewed by Customs, and by the police, who decided it was utterly inconsequential and had no value. No one at any time has even suggested he had earlier run-ins with police, authorities, airport officials or anyone else. So what exactly do you expect it to show?

Some guy flipped out, went nuts on cops, got tasered, and then died in a freak accident. Big whoop. Who cares what kind of chocolate bar he bought four hours earlier?

[guyser]

. So what exactly do you expect it to show?

Why erase it then. Cost savings? Cant the VACC afford a $5 cd copy fee?

All actions prior are evidence of the mans mental state, his whereabouts and his actions. Erase it and you automatically call in doubt.

IIRC the RCMP have stated the man was agitated beforehand , was aggressive beforehand , now we will never know.

Richard Nixon , er rather Rosemary his secretary erased 17 minutes of tapes. You dont think that had a hand in doing him in?

Edited April 11, 2008 by guyser

[eyeball]

Some guy flipped out, went nuts on cops, got tasered, and then died in a freak accident.

Talk about bullshit, that's not what happened. That tape I saw showed some cops flipping out and going nuts on the poor bastard they murdered.

Big whoop.

Why on Earth would you find that funny?

[capricorn]

If nothing else, his mother should become very rich at the hands of the RCMP, and ultimately the taxpayor. I sure hope so.

I can see it now. Mother collects millions and moves back to Poland to live out her remaining days.

And the officers and the guy who erased the tape should all be on the unemployment line.

The way some bureaucrats operate, the blunderers will be reassigned, probably with promotions to other departments.

[Argus]

Why erase it then. Cost savings? Cant the VACC afford a $5 cd copy fee?

Dunno, but I expect that would be an awful lot of CDs. One CD would record maybe 2-3 hours with any quality. So you'd need about ten each day per camera, times what, fifty or so cameras, so five hundred CDs per day, and they'd all have to be changed every couple of hours. So it's likely standard policy to keep them a week or so then, presuming no terrorist incident, rewrite over them.

Why they didn't save the hundred or so CDs from the previous few hours that day - well, I suppose in the absence of someone up high thinking to specifically order that, the system simply carried on as usual.

All actions prior are evidence of the mans mental state, his whereabouts and his actions. Erase it and you automatically call in doubt.

I suppose, but I think most of us figure the guy's mental state was pretty obvious when he's hurling chairs around. It wasn't like anyone thought he would die. These cops are told the taser is safe. And it usually is. Unfortunately, in addition to his obvious psychological flaws, he must have had some kind of physical problem with his heart too.

[Argus]

Talk about bullshit, that's not what happened. That tape I saw showed some cops flipping out and going nuts on the poor bastard they murdered.

Don't be childish. The cops had no intention of killing this guy or they'd have shot him. They've been told the taser is safe, and it is, but this wack job clearly had some kind of heart defect, in addition to not seeming to realize you don't throw chairs around in an airport. Six hour wait? Wasn't that the wait in the bread line in Poland a while back? Hardly a reason to go bananas.

[Wild Bill]

Don't be childish. The cops had no intention of killing this guy or they'd have shot him. They've been told the taser is safe, and it is, but this wack job clearly had some kind of heart defect, in addition to not seeming to realize you don't throw chairs around in an airport. Six hour wait? Wasn't that the wait in the bread line in Poland a while back? Hardly a reason to go bananas.

You've put your finger on the real problem: ignorance!

Cops are usually not chosen for technical background. They don't know how many things work, including tasers. When they had their taser training they probably were told that "only one in a million people might die from the shock!" Also, they no doubt had heard stories of people that had to be tasered multiple times before they went down.

All this adds up to a perception that tasers are a safe option. Airport cops may never have had occasion to use a taser before. They likely were genuinely shocked and surprised that the gentleman in question died.

It's sad but true that the more you simplify something for training purposes the more vague and inaccurate you make the information. I feel sorry for the cops in question. I've no doubt they were given sizzle instead of steak in their taser training.

[August1991]

Don't be childish. The cops had no intention of killing this guy or they'd have shot him. They've been told the taser is safe, and it is, but this wack job clearly had some kind of heart defect, in addition to not seeming to realize you don't throw chairs around in an airport. Six hour wait? Wasn't that the wait in the bread line in Poland a while back? Hardly a reason to go bananas.

Argus, the cops don't have the right to kill someone because he has a stapler in his hand.

You can watch the event here. I think the cops were trigger-happy and it appears that he died not from the taser but from having a cop put a knee on his throat.

As to the loss of these surveillance videos, it's either willful or incompetence. The cost of a few CDs is hardly an excuse. I'm inclined to go with incompetence all through the supply chain. That would also explain how a 24 year old new employee has access to a credit card to buy hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of junk.

[FTA Lawyer]

Let's consider what was on these tapes: Hours and hours and hours and hours of people walking back and forth, sitting down, standing in lines, and reading magazines. Here and there are clips of the Polish guy for a minute or two, leaning against a wall, sitting on a chair, looking out the window, buying a coke, perhaps. The original video was reviewed by Customs, and by the police, who decided it was utterly inconsequential and had no value. No one at any time has even suggested he had earlier run-ins with police, authorities, airport officials or anyone else. So what exactly do you expect it to show?

Some guy flipped out, went nuts on cops, got tasered, and then died in a freak accident. Big whoop. Who cares what kind of chocolate bar he bought four hours earlier?

Blind trust in the "officials" in the system is the only way you must be able to look at it this way.

If I worked security at ABC corp in downtown anywhere and someone in my building was killed in some unusual incident, my grade 8 education would be enough to flip the switch in my head that would say, "Hey, we have videotape of this...could be important...and the system automatically erases if we don't stop it...better go make a copy..."

Really, a trained monkey could remember to do this.

I don't know what the rest of the tapes showed...and no one else does either...and that's the problem...we have to trust the very people who tasered the hell out of this guy and have the highest motive to hide something that there was nothing there to see.

Sorry, doesn't cut it for me.

And here's a good example of why:

Mr. Bates came to suspect that investigative notes of Linda Purpur, the

Alberta Government Services investigator in this matter, may have existed which had not been

disclosed. Accordingly, Mr. Bates, by letter dated December 23, 2003, asked that the Crown

disclose these notes if they existed. In response, Mr. Bates received on January 8, 2004 from Ms.

Mah, Ms. Purpur’s investigative notes. These notes revealed the existence of undisclosed

evidence including potential witness names, witness statements to Ms. Purpur in telephone

conversations, statements made by Nicole Chriqui (the co-accused) to Alberta Government

Services investigators, photographic records, and a transcript and tape recording of the

September 26th, 2003 interview of Ms. Chriqui. The notes further indicate that Ms. Mah has

previously specifically directed Ms. Purpur that the tape of the September 26th, 2003 interview of

the co-accused Chriqui not be sent to defence counsel, Mr. Bates.

Crown Prosecutor Hiding Evidence

I've seen first-hand a Crown Prosecutor, agent of the Attorney General for Alberta, intentionally withhold tapes of evidence that would have assisted my client in proving his innocence...even AFTER a court had ordered her to hand over everything she had.

Inefficiency or over-sights due to inexperienced investigators and problems

due to under-staffing in the Crown office in my view fail to sufficiently mitigate the disregarding

of an order of the Court which took place when the Crown prosecutor continued to blithely

assume that the investigation branch had complied with disclosure requirements. Certainly Ms.

Mah should have gone into full alert mode, if not upon the order of this Court, then certainly upon

receiving the judgment of Brown, J., in the Canadian Bonded Credits case (supra). However, it

was not until March 24th, 2004 that the audio tapes and transcript of the Alberta Government

Services interview of Nicole Chriqui were provided to defence counsel. This was despite his

numerous entreaties, and only after he finally managed to persuade Ms. Mah that those materials

continued to be required in the application for costs, as they would be relevant to the

determination of the seriousness of the breach and the degree of misconduct of the Crown. On

reviewing the transcript of the interview of Ms. Chriqui, I find it most disconcerting that the

Crown did not immediately recognize its relevance and provide it without question to defence

counsel. Among other things, Ms. Chriqui, in her taped interview, discussed the training material

provided by her employers (the Applicant/Accused herein); the posting of relevant legislation in

the workplace; and the procedures which she was trained to follow in effecting collections by

telephone. Significant portions of her testimony at trial were inconsistent with what she had told

Ms. Purpur, yet the Crown did not disclose either the tape or the transcript of her interview until

after she had completed her testimony. Indeed, the notes of the investigator, Ms. Purpur, which

were not obtained by defence until January 8th, 2004, clearly reveal that Crown counsel, Ms. Mah,

specifically directed Ms. Purpur that the tape of the September 26th interview of Ms. Chriqui not

be sent to defence counsel.

[32] I find the conduct of the Crown in this matter regarding its disclosure obligations to be

generally consistent with Crown counsel’s conduct throughout these proceedings, which left an

overall air of neglect pervading this prosecution. Failing to appear for pre-trial conference, failing

to follow the Court’s directions regarding setting continuation dates, and failing to respond to

telephone communications from the Court all display a pattern of neglect akin to the lack of

response received by defence counsel to numerous entreaties for proper disclosure. I find this

conduct on the part of the Crown to be egregious and unacceptable, and in the circumstances

prejudicial to the defence in preparing their case and making full answer and defence to the

charges.

Conveniently missing or erased tapes are an affront to justice because justice must not only be done, but manifestly be seen to be done in order to maintain public trust.

FTA

[Rue]

To say that this is too convenient is quite the understatement:

Evidence Erased

When a client of mine has a recording of evidence that supports their innocence, I preserve it. I make multiple copies and secure them in separate locations and quite simply, I do not permit an "inadvertant" erasing of the evidence. I do this even for petty charges like parking tickets.

Now, CBSA has a guy dead in an airport after inexplicably being there for hours and then being tasered, with massive public attention brought to the situation and they would have us believe that no one took a single due dilligence step to preserve the original recordings?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Oh, but don't worry, it's okay because a CBSA guy reviewed all of the originals before they were erased, and trust him, there was nothing of significance on the erased portions.

THIS IS ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not only should the public demand firings at high-up levels of the CBSA over this, but there should be criminal investigations into possible obstruction of justice / evidence tampering or possibly criminal negligence charges.

This is not okay.

What these emails suggest is that, knowing there is an automatic erase function on the surveilance tapes (but apparently not knowing if it was after 16 or 7 days...kind of important) the CBSA guys pulled a copy for their officer to review, BUT MADE NO OTHER COPIES. Then, their guy cuts and pastes the sections he likes and all of the rest is disappeared for eternity.

Then, as if they are surprised that someone is requesting a copy of the tapes, they reveal OOPS! we had them but don't anymore...sorry!

I simply cannot believe this. This kind of demonstrated ability would not permit these people to hold jobs as greeters at Wal-Mart (and I apologize to Wal-Mart greeters for even mentioning them in the same sentence as the CBSA at this point).

FTA

Next you will call Richard Nixon's secretary a liar. Stop it.

[Rue]

Talk about bullshit, that's not what happened. That tape I saw showed some cops flipping out and going nuts on the poor bastard they murdered.

Why on Earth would you find that funny?

The Big Whoop comment you refer to as well as the comment on a 6 hour wait being normal for the bread line in Poland is supposed to make him sound tough. Some of us men to try show how tough we are make such comments. Kind of like burping or farting and not saying excuse me or scratching our scrotums and spitting.

People do seem to forget, men are primates and we still exhibit primal traits. Now please don't ask me about masterbating in public when we are bored. Too touchy a topic.

Getting back to this one, what this entire sorry episode shows is if you do not train your police officers properly in the use of weapons, they will kill people, in this case needlessly and unintentionally.

Police officers need better training in handling such situations and the taser is a very dangerous and inappropriate weapon.

Most martial arts experts I know say its far safer to teach police how to use their batons and enage in certain holds. Or there are two better restrain weapons i- the net gun and ii- the foam gun. The net gun shoots a net onto the person to restrain them and the foam gun sprays a quick acting foam that encases the arms and legs and prevents the person from hurting themselves or others.

Those two weapons are much more preferable then a taser which is inherently dangerous and will kill because humans are not designed to absorb electricity like that and precisely because police officers do not know who has a heart condiiton and who does not or what kinds of medication someone is on that when mixed with electricity could kill them.

To turn this episode into an opportunity to ridicule the dead man is a cheap shot. Its as inappropriate as it is to call all cops pigs and brutal or get personal and accuse these cops in this incident of brutality. They had no intention of killing this man. What you see is a classic case of inadequate training.

Its a shameful preventable death that could have happened to any of us. Excuse me, but anyone trapped in an airport for 6 hours and being completely ignored will lose it.

What is also absolutely inexcusable is the airline did not call on the loudspeaker for someone who could speak Polish to come and talk to the man as happens all the time in airports with confused travellers, or they could have called the telephone operator and asked for a Polish translator and speak to this person through the translator. The airline chose to completely ignore this man and make no effort to converse with him in his language. They took his money knowing he's from Poland and knowing he spoke Polish, but couldn't be bothered to provide the most basic service. I blame the airline and the airport as much as I do the police.

Edited April 12, 2008 by Rue

[bush_cheney2004]

...Those two weapons are much more preferable then a taser which is inherently dangerous and will kill because humans are not designed to absorb electricity like that and precisely because police officers do not know who has a heart condiiton and who does not or what kinds of medication someone is on that when mixed with electricity could kill them.

Doesn't matter...the taser is a legal weapon that filled the void between close proximity intervention (e.g. baton) and firearms (deadly force). All manner of police actions can result in fatalities because of unknown variables.

This case is sexy as political grist for the mill, but it is otherwise routine. The lawyers will do their thing and bank accounts will be adjusted. Rules of engagment will be reviewed. More tasers will still be sold.

Edited April 12, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

The issue here isn't Dziekanski but why the tapes were erased while inquiries were still in progress Shouldn't have happened, period.

[bush_cheney2004]

The issue here isn't Dziekanski but why the tapes were erased while inquiries were still in progress Shouldn't have happened, period.

Right...but it did happen if the reports are accurate. Somebody screwed up, but it doesn't materially change events or the legal outcome / liability.

Video evidence of compliance with procedures in this instance (with context) may or may not be relevant to national policy on Tasers.

[Wilber]

Right...but it did happen if the reports are accurate. Somebody screwed up, but it doesn't materially change events or the legal outcome / liability.

Video evidence of compliance with procedures in this instance (with context) may or may not be relevant to national policy on Tasers.

That may be perfectly true but the problem is, we will never know for sure and that is bad for everyone. When ever an incident happens in aviation, the ATC tapes are pulled and become evidence for the TSB. Why not here?

[bush_cheney2004]

That may be perfectly true but the problem is, we will never know for sure and that is bad for everyone. When ever an incident happens in aviation, the ATC tapes are pulled and become evidence for the TSB. Why not here?

Agreed...that is the actual procedural mistake, not tape erasure in and of itself. Some people want to leap to another grand conspiracy, just like the American FBI siezing videotapes in Washington DC after 9/11 Pentagon attacks, when they were following procedures.

[Argus]

Blind trust in the "officials" in the system is the only way you must be able to look at it this way.

I'm the last person to trust anyone blindly. However, we saw what actually happened. I cannot see how what happened an hour earlier could possibly have any affect on our judgment regarding why he was tasered, whether he was tasered properly, and how to change police procedures in future, if necessary. Those are the relevant questions. Whether he bought a coke six hours earlier or a pepsi just doesn't seem very important.

Throw chairs around an airport and the cops will come for you. Refuse their orders to put your chair or stapler or whatever down and you'll either get a club in the head or tasered. Doesn't seem that complicated to me.

[eyeball]

Bobby-cams might be the answer.

Britain is taking its surveillance to a new level, strapping video cameras to the helmets of its famed bobbies — a move the government says will cut down on paperwork and help prosecute criminals...

Britain is not the first country to use such cameras, versions of which have been tested in Denmark. But the national rollout will tighten Britain’s web of video surveillance, already the most extensive in the world. The country is watched over by a network of some 4 million closed-circuit cameras, and privacy advocates complain the average Briton is recorded as many as 300 times a day...

In a report on the Plymouth pilot project published by the Home Office on Thursday, policemen praised the head-held cameras for deterring bad behavior and providing excellent evidence against crooks...

Before we saturate our society with cameras I'd like to take surveillance to the very highest levels and strap cameras to the heads of Cabinet Ministers and the senior-most bureacrats they administer. The performance of our lesser officials should improve due to the trickle down of accountability that would occur once the very top was held to account for its actions.

Instead of a trickle down effect of honesty and integrity from the so-called right and honourable people at the top, the case of Robert Dziekanski and others like Ian Bush are signs of the trickle down effect of secrecy and deception, aka as corruption, that's so evident in the senior-most levels of government and especially our police and other security departments.

Does anyone else find it wierd when people who call for more police and government surveillance in our public spaces also defend the...."privacy"...(koff) of the same police and government that manage and protect the public's domain?

[eyeball]

Throw chairs around an airport and the cops will come for you. Refuse their orders to put your chair or stapler or whatever down and you'll either get a club in the head or tasered. Doesn't seem that complicated to me.

The tape we do have indicates that Robert Dziekanski had nothing in his hands when the cops confronted, surrounded and then tasered him. Why are you complicating this by claiming otherwise?

[FTA Lawyer]

I'm the last person to trust anyone blindly. However, we saw what actually happened. I cannot see how what happened an hour earlier could possibly have any affect on our judgment regarding why he was tasered, whether he was tasered properly, and how to change police procedures in future, if necessary. Those are the relevant questions. Whether he bought a coke six hours earlier or a pepsi just doesn't seem very important.

Throw chairs around an airport and the cops will come for you. Refuse their orders to put your chair or stapler or whatever down and you'll either get a club in the head or tasered. Doesn't seem that complicated to me.

This is all you've got? Buddy deserved to be clubbed in the head or tasered? Well, I guess that's the end of it then...Argus has spoken.

The earlier footage would hopefully confirm that nothing of significance was observed beforehand. But thanks to the incompetence of the very people whose actions or omissions are under scrutiny, we will never know. Maybe we would see a CBSA guy poking his finger at the glass he was behind like a fish in a pet store...to speculate one way or the other is a useless exercise.

I watched a Crown in Banff one day arguing at length to a judge about how an accused's failure to follow RCMP commands to turn off and get out of his vehicle was compelling evidence of his intoxication while behind the wheel.

The judge being a bit more on the ball posed to the Crown the possibility that the commands were not followed because the Japanese accused didn't speak nor understand a word of English (and was simultaneously having every word in court interpreted to him by an English-Japanese interpreter).

Things are not always obvious, even when they are right in front of your face.

FTA

[Argus]

This is all you've got? Buddy deserved to be clubbed in the head or tasered? Well, I guess that's the end of it then...Argus has spoken.

I don't think I'm particularly unique in my thinking.

The earlier footage would hopefully confirm that nothing of significance was observed beforehand. But thanks to the incompetence of the very people whose actions or omissions are under scrutiny, we will never know. Maybe we would see a CBSA guy poking his finger at the glass he was behind like a fish in a pet store...to speculate one way or the other is a useless exercise.

I watched a Crown in Banff one day arguing at length to a judge about how an accused's failure to follow RCMP commands to turn off and get out of his vehicle was compelling evidence of his intoxication while behind the wheel.

The judge being a bit more on the ball posed to the Crown the possibility that the commands were not followed because the Japanese accused didn't speak nor understand a word of English (and was simultaneously having every word in court interpreted to him by an English-Japanese interpreter).

There seems to be no doubt in anyone's mind at all that this Polish guy acted up, got violent - if only with inanimate objects -, and deservedly drew police intervention.

I would not doubt that his language difficulties complicated the situation as police surrounded him and started issuing commands to him. But there is a universal response in such situations - put your hands up and do nothing to resist. You don't try to walk away from the cops, and you don't fight. In fact, even after he was down and handcuffed the civilian taking the footage I watched was saying "he's still fighting them" to his camera.

So it's unfortunate that he had a heart defect, or whatever, but as has been pointed out before, in a small minority of cases, regardless of the force used (physical holds, ie, choke holds, batons, tasers, fists) some people with strange physical defects are going to die. It happens. But no one could have foreseen it.