(CBC News) – The RCMP officer quoted in a controversial email written weeks after Robert Dziekanski died at the Vancouver airport says his colleague who wrote the messages was mistaken about what was said.
In the email, Chief Supt. Dick Bent told Assistant Commissioner Al McIntyre that Supt. Wayne Rideout told him the officers who used a Taser on Dziekanski discussed using the weapon on their way to the scene.
That contradicted testimony the Mounties themselves gave earlier in the Braidwood inquiry looking into Dziekanski’s death two years ago.
“Chief Supt. Bent is a highly respected member of the RCMP. But the way he has portrayed my comments to him in that passage that I read out is wrong,” Rideout told the inquiry Tuesday.
Bent also testified Tuesday, and said he was standing by his initial interpretation of what the officers discussed on the way to the airport, but admitted he might have been mistaken.
Bent said he wrote the email shortly after speaking by phone to the supervisor of the officers involved in the incident.
Dziekanski died in October 2007 after being shot five times by RCMP officers with a stun gun, then left handcuffed face down on the floor of the airport’s arrivals lounge.
The inquiry resumed Tuesday after a three-month delay to allow the contents of an internal RCMP email to be examined.
The November 2007 email, from Bent to assistant commissioner Al McIntyre, suggests the four Mounties who responded to the airport call discussed, before they arrived on the scene, a plan to use a Taser against the Polish immigrant.
“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,” Bent said in the email.
The “Wayne” in the email is Supt. Wayne Rideout, then head of the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team looking into Dziekanski’s death. CEW is short for a conducted energy weapon, the RCMP name for a Taser-type weapon.
The revelation the email existed halted inquiry proceedings in June just as summations were to begin.
‘We’re going to deal with it’
The email appears to contradict the statements of the four officers involved in the incident at Vancouver International Airport. They testified in the spring that they didn’t have a plan before reaching the scene to use the stun gun on Dziekanski.
Inquiry commissioner Thomas Braidwood has scolded the RCMP for failing to disclose the email sooner.
“I was critical back in June because that email we should have had,” inquiry lawyer Art Vertlieb said. “The more important thing is we’ve got it and we’re going to deal with it.”
Vertlieb has acknowledged the comments on the email are hearsay but he said they must be investigated since they’re from senior RCMP.
“On its face, the email appears to tell a significantly different story,” he said.
The three RCMP officials cited in the email are expected to tell the inquiry the email was the result of a misunderstanding.
The four officers who were at the airport have already appeared before the inquiry and are not scheduled to appear again.
“There is not a single shred of evidence to support the assertion made in Chief Bent’s email,” said lawyer David Butcher, who represents Const. Bill Bentley.
Officers not facing charges
The RCMP has produced about 18,000 new documents since June.
Walter Kosteckyj, the lawyer representing Dziekanski’s mother, said he’ll consider asking the inquiry to call back the four officers if he thinks there are unanswered questions.
Crown prosecutors have decided not to charge Bentley, Const. Gerry Rundel, Const. Kwesi Millington or Cpl. Benjamin Robinson in Dziekanski’s death.
“Based on the assessment of evidence I’ve seen to date, I haven’t seen much else,” Kosteckyj told The Canadian Press. “The only thing that has to be explained is why does a person who is in command write that kind of an email. When I take a look at how quickly (the Taser) was used, I have a hard time believing that it wasn’t discussed.”
Vertlieb said final arguments will likely finish by mid-October.
Original evidence is the preferred evidence. In our adversarial system, non original evidence is frowned upon. It is unfortunate that the handling of evidence is becoming fashioned by “public perception”.
As for correcting the record, the blurting of information which may not be accurate is ludicrous and no airing of “facts” made until they are substantiated.
Too bad about the some of the publics zeal with wanting all the information instantly. I would prefer to get substantiated facts later than unconfirmed information in the first instance. Any (even slight) errors or omissions are immediately deemed to be lies or cover ups by the uneducated and misinformed.
In the case of Rideout’s reasons, I have to agree. The downside of getting more facts out faster which could have been unsubstantiated or harmful to the case trumps the insatiable public hunger for instant gratification.
Do not mistake the publics perception for that of the media’s perception claiming both sides of the equation.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
In this case the investigators were correct to seize the video. However, when they did not return it as promised- despite having ample time to copy it, is where I believe they went wrong.
They broke their word and that is when people started screaming “cover up”. Whither or not this was the true intent does not matter. What matter is what the public percieves.
Even if people are going to sue, you might as well get sued for doing the right thing.
As far as the whole lie vs mistake arguement is concerned, bureaucracies do make mistakes. But, why did the force decide it wasn’t going to correct the record? This was something the media officer tesitfied to.
I guess two people could argue all day if this was a mistake or a lie. But, the fact so many people disbelieve what the RCMP are saying is testament to how low their credibility has become. One can also argue this and what the true facts really are. But, once again public perception is what seems to really matter.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
I don’t think you will find any posters here that have said the handling of the affair was lilly white.
With all the ballyhoo of the yvr video and its release it is interesting to note that the Vancouver police are being sued by the Pivot legal society for doing just that. I believe they said: “In April, Pivot Legal complained that Police Chief Jim Chu improperly disclosed video evidence of the shooting death that he claimed showed the officers acted in self-defence. ”
So in this case the quick release of video evidence is part of a lawsuit. Can you see the dichotomy police are in when these sort of situations arise? On one hand people scream cover up ‘et al’ when the authorities try and handle evidence in one way, and then on the other hand they get sued if they handle it the other way.
So which is the right way? No matter what you do somebody will object and complain and form theories and even sue.
So the rules of evidence have to be changed for video? Which way?
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
Well, maybe I didn’t properly phrase my last comment. But, all conspiracy theories aside, anyone who thinks the force handled this affair is “lilly white” manner is pretty naive.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0
The direct conflict of testimony between Supt Rideout and Dick Bent is not an example of circling the wagons. They would have the same story if they were trying to do that. The fact that Bent misunderstood Rideout is obvious. As pointed out by Butcher, there is not a shred of evidence otherwise. Adjust your conspiracy theories accordingly.
Why does a person in command write an email like that? Because he is too far removed from the situation to micromanage and draw conclusions before he has all the facts. Poor management actions on his part.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
0 
1
Another attempt to close ranks and circle the wagons. YAWN.
Do you Like or Dislike the above comment:
1 
0