Thread by @smagee29

Good morning from Bathurst where the fifth day of the arbitration hearing for constables Mathieu Boudreau and Patrick Bulger, who were involved in the fatal shooting of Michel Vienneau in 2015 based on false Crime Stoppers tips. Tweets to follow in this thread.

The day started at 9 am as the hearing has been falling behind schedule. Up to 17 witnesses were expected to testify over eight days. A day of testimony was lost last week when the officers fired their lawyers and sought an adjournment (it wasn't granted and lawyers were rehired)

The Bathurst police chief has recommended the two officers be fired for their conduct around the shooting. The hearing will determine what discipline they may face.

Basile Chiasson, the lawyer for the police chief, opened the day by saying he was changing up the expected witness list for today because of the pace set over previous days.

Today's first witness is Larry Wilson (shown right) a now-retired RCMP officer who in 2015 led the Nova Scotia RCMP investigation of the shooting. He was involved in the Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka task force.

He says he was called around 2 p.m. on Jan. 12, 2015 and told there had been an officer-involved shooting in Bathurst. He was told Nova Scotia RCMP would take responsibility for investigating it and to assemble a team to do so.

The officer of 36 years says this was the first time he was called to investigate a police-involved shooting. The team set up a headquarters in Bathurst and collected statements in Bathurst until Jan. 19, then continued from Dartmouth, N.S.

Wilson says the purpose of the investigation was to identify whether there were grounds for criminal code charges from the shooting and if the use of force was appropriate under the circumstances. His final report included a number of recommendations.

Chiasson is moving to have the report entered as evidence in the hearing.

Short break as lawyers for the officers confer. The indication earlier in the hearing is that they may object to the report being entered as evidence.

TJ Burke, a lawyer for Boudreau, says the report contains various findings and an appendix favourable to the complainant (the police chief). The arbitrator says should he accept the evidence, he wouldn't place much weight on the evidence/narrative in the report.

Burke says the report may help with the factual understanding, but says the facts the arbitrator hears himself are what is considered evidence, not what's contained in a report.

Munro argues there should be no weight given by the arbitrator to the narrative set out in the report, though perhaps some of the ballistics and paint transfer information would be useful.

Munro says, for instance, the testimony of Annick Basque shouldn't be used at all given she testified in the hearing. "I agree," the arbitrator says. He points out the difference comes with people in the report who have not testified at the hearing.

"I must say, I am intrigued by the use of force key findings," the arbitrator says. He says he's surprised Burke would object to that portion. The arbitrator points out the report is the first time he's heard that Bulger fired his gun as well.

Munro acknowledges the report itself is very favourable to the respondents (the officers).

The arbitrator says he wants to look at the whole document, but assign the appropriate weight. He says untested evidence would be treated as hearsay.
Lawyers for the officers consent to the report being entered as evidence.

The arbitrator says the use of force report is "extremely important" and tied to his role in making a decision.

Chiasson says the point of calling Wilson was to get the report introduced, which has happened, so he has no further questions. Burke starts cross-examination.
Hones in first on that this was the first time he carried out an officer-involved shooting investigation.

Was this an unbiased, fair assembly of the evidence?
Yes.
So no intent to just get the officers off the charges?
Not at all.
Understanding that facts would be used for criminal or civil proceedings?
Yes, as well as coroner's inquiry.

The report was filed with Crown prosecutors in New Brunswick as well the Serious Incident Response Team.

Aware there was a use of force appendix in your report?
Yes.
Such a report would be necessary to conclude whether a shooting is justified?
Yes, though it was put together as facts were gathered whereas often it's done after all the facts are known and gathered.

Burke turns Wilson to his report's 21 key findings.
They include:
- Vienneau has no known criminal links or past.
“There was a very extensive investigation done,” Wilson says. A crime analyst from Fredericton went to Quebec to check a database.

Another finding: The deceased may not have known the two officers were police.
Burke 'May' because you can’t know?
“You’re right, that’s why we put may there.”

Finding: The only ID that they were police was the badges on chains around their neck.
Is that uncommon for undercover work?
No, Wilson says.

Finding: Police lights were flashing at the time on the unmarked cars.
Yes.
That was the Pontiac Bulger and Boudreau were driving?
Yes.

Key finding: Vienneau "purposely struck Bulger."
“Pretty big finding, I would say,” Burke says.
“Yes," Wilson says.

Finding: Deceased actions were not influenced by drugs or alcohol.
Burke : was there alcohol found in toxicology report?
Not that I recall, Wilson says.

Finding: No mechanical issues found with Vienneau's car.
Finding: Bulger fired his pistol once at rear tire to try to stop it from moving.
Burke: That was to try to stop the car?
“That’s what he said,” Wilson says.
You had no reason to doubt that?
No.

Finding: Boudreau fired four times to stop an imminent and ongoing threat to his partner's life.
Burke: You don’t disagree with your key finding?
“No, I don’t,” Wilson says.

Burke now asking a series of questions about the use of force continuum. This may have set out to be investigative, may have set out to be surveillance. But that can "change int he whim of a second." Am I wrong?
Wilson: No, you're not wrong.

Burke: The use of force here was caused by Vienneau
purposely trying to run over Bulger?
"It certainly preceding the shooting," Wilson said.

The use of force report concludes Boudreau shooting Vienneau was justified to save the life of Bulger.
Burke asks Wilson to confirm he supports that conclusion. He does.

Burke wraps his cross. Brian Munro starts his cross of Wilson.
You had an accident reconstructionist investigate?
Yes.

The physicality of the impact was confirmed in the report? Red paint transfer from plate of Bulger/Boudreau car to bumper of Vieneau's white car?
Yes, Wilson says. There was actually paint transfer between the two vehicles.

Munro asks about viability of the flashing police light on the visor which was an issue during Basque's testimony.

The light didn't appear to stand out very well. He continues:
"I thought this probably wasn't the best illumination or visibility of a police vehicle."

The light is a clip-on?
Yes, I noted that myself.
Munro: That's not the officers fault -that's the equipment offered.
I can't offer opinion on who is responsible, just on its visibility.

Wilson says the impact of the two cars hitting each other moved the light.

Wilson adds there flashing red/blue lights on the Pontiac's headlights weren't working at the time.

Munro again says that's not necessarily the officers' fault.
Conclusions on how that could impact a person's impression of whether or not the car is undercover police car?

That could affect things. Wilson says he accepted that Basque may not have realized officers were police.

Wilson's testimony has concluded and a lunch break has started.

Before the break, I requested a copy of the RCMP report discussed during testimony this morning. I argued given it has been entered as evidence in a public hearing, we should have access to fully and accurately be able to report on its contents.

Lawyers for the police officers opposed the request, saying that publication of the information could prejudice future testimony by witnesses.

I argued that the hearing is already public, reporters have been reporting on testimony. That includes the findings of the report read by the lawyers of the officers.

The arbitrator ruled the report should not be released yet because of the concerns raised by the lawyers and that there may be information in the report that could harm public security.

There's a section of the regulations for these hearings that set out the grounds for closing the hearings to the public. One is if there's potential harm to public safety. There's no indication so far that the report contain such information.

The arbitrator did say that once the evidence is completed, the reason for keeping the report sealed ceases to exist. Unless there’s compelling legal reason or precedent, his inclination is to release it barring any other legal or statutory reasons.

Here's the story so far today: cbc.ca/news/canada/ne…

Basile Chiasson says he will call one witness today because the report was accepted into evidence. Tomorrow, he expects to call three witnesses and then close the case on behalf of the police chief.

The next witness is Miramichi Police Force Const. Larry Matchett. He's been a police officer since 1993. He's currently with the Miramichi crime reduction unit. He say more than 90 per cent of the files are drug-related.

He was assigned to the Northeast Integrated Intelligence Unit starting from 2009 to 2017. It's the unit Bulger and Boudreau were part of at the time of the shooting.

Ron DeSilva was supervisor of the unit at the time and testified last week: cbc.ca/news/canada/ne…

Two other unit members have testified so far:
cbc.ca/news/canada/ne…

Larry Matchett says he arrived at work around 9:30 a.m. on Jan. 12, 2015. He recounts how DeSilva told the team that morning that Crime Stoppers tips about Michel Vienneau had come in.

After that, he got ready to go.
Basile Chiasson, the lawyer representing the Bathurst police chief, asks on what authority he was going.
"It was my belief that we were going out there to investigate this tip," Matchett says.

Matchett says after verifying the white Cruze owned by Vienneau was in the parking lot, he parked near the hardware store on the south end of the station parking lot.
He was the first to arrive at the parking lot. He called to let other officers know the car was there.

He had a clear view of the vehicle, which he describes as being about 160 feet away. He says Denis Lajoie and George Richard were parked north of the train station. Bulger and Boudreau were parked near the target car, but he couldn't see them because of a snowbank.

What were you doing there?
"Investigating a Crime Stoppers tip."
By what means?
To observe the car, anyone who might get in the car.

Recall any discussion on the radio system while you were at the train station parking lot?
No.

The train arrived. Matchett says he saw a man and woman walking toward the white Cruze. He recalls Vienneau putting two bags in the trunk. He cleared the snow off the car.
As that happened, he doesn't recall any chatter on the radio system.

He says Vienneau gets in the car, his passenger gets in, the vehicle backs up so the front is pointed toward Queen Street. Bulger then radioed that they were going to block the car. He saw their car block it.

He saw Boudreau and Bulger both get out of the unmarked police car. Matchett says he started driving and lost visual contact with the cars for a couple seconds.
He says the white car was now in a different position, off at a 45 degree angle.

"Bulger was in the road directly in front of Vienneau's vehicle," he says. Bulger was about 15 feet in front of the car on the passenger side. He says he saw the car accelerate toward Bulger.

"I saw Const. Bulger backing up, trying to get out of the way."
Midway across the road, he slipped and fell, got up and continued to try to back up.
The car went into the snowbank.
"As it did, Const. Bulger was pushing himself off the front passenger side of the car."

Matchett says he couldn't see Boudreau. "I was concentrating on Const. Bulger."
Did he hear anything?
No.

When he is pushing himself off the car, where is it?
Already on the snowbank.

Matchett drove up to the back of Vienneau's car so it couldn't move.

He went to the driver's door and helped remove Vienneau from the car.

The female passenger was "hysterical," she was yelling. Matchett says he only speaks English.

He says Sgt. George Richard went over the passenger to talk to her. He now adds the only thing he could understand her saying was "you're not police."

Returning to the driver's side, he saw bullet holes in the vehicle. "That's when I pieced together that shots had been fired."

You could always see Bulger when the car hit the snowbank?
Yes.
Where was he?
Most of the time he was in front, but at the end he was off to the side pushing himself off.

When you saw the officers step out, what was your understanding of what they'd be doing?
To make an arrest.
How do you know that?
Because our investigation had led us to believe they were trafficking drugs.

There's an extended break in the hearing.
The arbitrator raised the idea that if they wrap up testimony early today, he may want to go with the lawyers to the Via Rail station to observe the location.

Chiasson returns to seeing the car hit the snowbank.
As it hit the snowbank, he was pushing himself off the side and rolled away, Matchett says.
Chiasson wraps up.
TJ Burke starts his cross-examination.

He's running through a line of questioning similar to that with previous officers who were at the scene about the train being used to move drugs, the use of force.

Burke: His hands were on the vehicle?
Yes.
Burke: As it was going into the snowbank?
Yes.

Burke: Based on your training, your use of force continuum, I'd suggest you'd use the same force Boudreau used because of the imminent harm?
Yes.

Burke: Do you recall Bulger limping when performing CPR on Vienneau?
Not that I recall.

Munro cross-examining Matchett. He's turning to Matchett's description of Bulger back up while in front of the accelerating white Cruze.

Matchett says he saw the Chevy stopped, saw Bulger back up, the car accelerate towards constable Bulger.
Munro wraps up his cross-examination.
Chiasson begins redirect.

When you left he station, were you expecting to encounter weapons?
Drug dealers are known to carry weapons, so yes.

Chiasson: you saw Bulger with his hands on the vehicle.
Matchett: Yes, he was pushing himself off the vehicle (he motions with both arms pushing back).
Anything in his hands?
I don't recall.

Chiasson ends redirect.
The arbitrator now has several questions.
First about the radio system - whether Bathurst police have the encrypted radio system the members of the Northeast Integrated Intelligence Unit were using.
He says they don't, but sometimes borrow.

Did you see Bulger and Boudreau park?
Yes, I pulled up behind them.
Where was their car parked?
Just west of the station.
Any vehicles between the cars?
Yes, there were quite a few vehicles in the lot.
How many spaces?
Four or five.

Matchett's testimony is done.

The arbitrator says that concludes witness testimony for the day. He goes back to the idea of visiting the Via Rail station.
He says he wants to get a general sense of the area.

Rules: Meet there at specific time, place. Michaud walks around with lawyers, complaint, parties. No evidence to be given. No one else to be close to the group.

Short break before they discuss the idea further.

Sounds like they're going to the train station.
TJ Burke also says the two parties will need to have a conversation that could help matters related to this hearing. Chiasson says his counterpart has used words that carry certain obligations.
Oblique references.

Lawyer, police chief, the arbitrator and officers at the site.

The site visit was the last thing today. The hearing is expected to resume at about 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. Chiasson indicated this morning he'd be calling Julie Daigle, another officer who was at the train station Jan. 12, 2015, and a ballistics expert.

@threadreaderapp unroll