Posts Tagged ‘courts’
Manitoba Justice: Proof that the system works
Good news stories out of Manitoba’s criminal courts can be few and far between, if media reports and public sentiment are any indication. But it’s easy to lose sight … Continue reading
‘I am not happy’ — a veteran Judge reflects on the state of courtroom 308
Are lawyers disrespecting Manitoba’s provincial court? It’s a question posed today by a frustrated veteran judge, Marvin Garfinkel (appointed in December 1979) as he juggled cases in Courtroom 308 at the law courts complex downtown. Room 308 is designated as a sentencing or plea-entry court to deal with “summary conviction” criminal matters — matters which [...]
Catch and release: Notes on the Samantha Anderson homicide
(Samantha Cherish Anderson)
What does the “supervised” in supervised probation mean in Manitoba, exactly?
It’s a question churning around and around in my head today as I dug into the wealth of justice system-related background available on Shayla Woodford, a 21-year-old Manitoba woman accused by police of murdering her one-time live-in lover Samantha Cherish Anderson.
Anderson died Dec. 21, weeks after police say she was attacked in a Boyd Avenue home on Dec. 2 — the day before her 24th birthday.
Woodford was accused (and she’s presumed innocent) right from the start, arrested just after the incident on aggravated assault and probation breach charges.
She was officially rearrested for second-degree murder earlier this week.
At the time of Anderson’s death, Woodford was out on bail (for the 7th time since late 2009) and bound by two supervised probation orders meant to either keep her in check, help rehabilitate her or, more likely, both of those things.
While the latest two cases she faces have yet to be proven, Woodford’s habit of getting collared for crimes raises questions about the level of supervision to be expected when a sentenced person is placed on supervised probation by the courts.
An unusual feature is how Woodford’s involvement with the justice system only dates back three years, shortly after she turned 18 and began her relationship with Anderson.
Since then, however, she’s been arrested and released multiple times for a variety of different offences, some of them domestic-related and others not.
To try and make sense of it, I crafted a timeline out of the available information. After taking a number of hours to consider it and its implications, I’ve decided to present it here for the record:
November 2008: Woodford and Anderson begin their relationship.
Sept 12, 2009: The couple are now living together on Young Street. Woodford, drunk on 24 Budweiser beer, assaults Anderson — even turning up the stereo to mask the sounds of the attack — and is arrested at the scene by police. She’s released on conditions she have no contact with Anderson as the case makes its way through the courts.
October 2009: The couple are back living together despite the no-contact conditions.
January 25-Feb 1, 2010: Sometime in this period, Woodford assaults Anderson again after getting a call from her lawyer, who reads to her Anderson’s statement from the prior incident.
Feb 12, 2010: Woodford asks Anderson “who she’s trying to look good for.” The incident prompts Anderson to flee their home and she tells police she’s forced to hide in a restaurant for 30 minutes to an hour to evade her lover. She spends the rest of the weekend at a friend’s home.
Feb 14, 2010: Woodford spots Anderson outside, pulls up in a car and drags her into it. Woodford pushes her into her home, pulling off Anderson’s shoes and tossing them in the snow, telling her “She’s never going anywhere again.” She then bites her on the arm.
Feb 16, 2010: Anderson discloses recent events to police and they arrest Woodford.
March 29, 2010: Woodford is released on bail to live with family, ordered to have no contact with Anderson and stay a minimum of two blocks away from her at all times.
Nov. 14, 2010: Anderson’s mother has a phone conversation with her daughter, hears Woodford in the background and calls police out of concern. Police attend and take her into custody.
Dec. 22, 2010: Woodford, granted bail weeks earlier, can’t raise a required surety, so conditions are changed on this day to remove that condition. She’s freed, ordered to abide by a nightly curfew and again, have no contact with Anderson.
March 4, 2011: Cops investigating an unrelated compliant are sent on a goose chase trying to find Woodford. They’re told she left town for her home community of Fairford First Nation for the weekend.
March 8, 2011: Woodford stops signing in at bail supervision.
June 7, 2011: Winnipeg cops finally catch up to her after they nearly hit her with a cruiser car when she walks out in front of it near Logan Avenue and Tecumseh Street. The warrant for her arrest comes to light.
Aug. 5, 2011: Woodford, held in custody now, pleads guilty to three counts of assault and a number of breaches. Judge Tim Preston cautions her about her conduct toward Anderson and apportions some of her dead time to the various charges she pleaded to. She’s released that same day on a two year long supervised probation order, with conditions including avoiding Anderson for the entire term, take domestic violence counselling and a weapons ban. These marked her first-ever convictions. “That relationship was not healthy, it’s over,” Preston tells her. “I don’t want you having anything to do with her.”
Dec. 10, 2011: A heavily intoxicated Woodford steals a Duffy’s Taxi driver’s cab, only to be arrested behind the wheel not long after. Belligerent, it takes hours for police to get a breath reading off of her. She blows .210, nearly three times the legal limit.
Dec. 12, 2011: She’s released on bail.
Feb 16, 2012: Woodford is again back in court for reasons that weren’t made clear. But they obviously had something to do with Anderson, because her bail conditions are set to include having no contact with her. She is also barred from being in the City of Winnipeg except for probation and court-related meetings or appointments.
April 6, 2012: Anderson and Woodford are riding a city bus together when one of them decides to snatch an iPhone from a passenger’s hands. They flee, but the passenger gives chase. The two women play a game of keep away with the phone until the victim restrains Woodford and Anderson jets off with the phone. Police ultimately arrest both. The charge against Anderson is stayed at a later date. Woodford is charged with the theft and a no-contact breach.
July 6, 2012: Woodford’s second sentencing: Only through her probing the lawyers does Judge Heather Pullan come to discover out a small amount of the troubled past shared by Woodford and Anderson. “What about Ms. Anderson?,” Pullan asks. “(Woodford’s) victimized her before and is now getting in trouble with her,” she says. She’s told it was Anderson who contacted Woodford this time around and that the relationship is “complex.”
Neither the Crown nor defence requests any additional probation as part of this sentence.
Pullan rebuffs that and imposes another two-year term, despite the fact she appears to be holding her nose somewhat due to Woodford’s conduct on the prior order: “This whole line of behaviour tells me you don’t care what the court says, you’re going to do what you’re going to do and victimize people,” she tells Woodford. “You have to understand, Ms. Woodford, you’re running out of chances.”
Pullan did wonder aloud why it was the prior probation term seemed to be failing to help Woodford get straight, but appeared to push the onus right back on her.
“You’re treating this whole thing as a joke. It’s really hard to protect the public from you,” Pullan tells her.
Sept. 12, 2012: Woodford is accused of several new charges, including assault, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and breach of probation. The incident obviously involves Portage Place Mall, as:
Sept 17, 2012: Woodford is released on bail with conditions she live at an address in Gypsumville and not move without permission and to stay away from Portage Place mall.
October 29, 2012: A Probation officer files a report in support of charging Woodford with new breaches as she can’t be located in Fairford, and a relative says she asked for her stuff to be sent down to Winnipeg. The relative refused to give the probation officer the contact number. The officer warns in the letter that Woodford was assessed at “high risk for general criminal conduct” and she has a “propensity to become violent.” A relative told the officer: “She is supposed to be staying with me and I have tried to help her and now I don’t know what to do.”
Dec. 2, 2012: Anderson is attacked with a kitchen knife inside a Boyd Avenue home and police charge Woodford. They say the two were living at the home. A 17-year-old girl is also injured in the attack.
Dec. 21, 2012: Anderson dies of her injuries.
Dec. 24, 2012: Police announce they have charged Woodford with second-degree murder and she remains in custody.
-30-
Court of Appeal to Manitoba Corrections: Gladue ‘lip service’ comes at a cost
(Winnipeg’s Old Law Courts Building)
A single sentence buried deep in a lengthy written decision from Manitoba’s Court of Appeal contains the words many in the city’s legal community — including, no doubt, many judges — have been eagerly waiting to hear from our top court.
They’re worth reading a few times over to soak in their gravity:
“There is presently in this province either a concerning disregard or a systemic impossibility to provide what is required for judges to comply with the dictates of the Supreme Court.”
Justice Michel Monnin wrote the above in the court’s unanimous decision to slash in half the 10-year-long sentence Queen’s Bench Justice Shane Perlmutter handed to a 23-year-old rapist who sexually assaulted an unconscious woman in her northern Manitoba home in 2010.
Monnin’s cutting words are aimed squarely at Manitoba Corrections, the provincial justice agency responsible for preparing pre-sentencing/Gladue reports for judges, a task its been doing for many years now.
Gladue reports are written to help inform judges about the particular circumstances of individual aboriginal offenders. They look at the community from which an aboriginal person hails from, their family history and what factors may have led them into contact with the criminal justice system.
The overall intent of the reports is to help judges satisfy their legal requirement (enshrined in s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code) to consider “all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances.”
These “should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders,” the law says.
The intent of the Criminal Code provision — put in place in the 90s and often called the “Gladue” section — was to try and address the vast over-representation of aboriginal offenders in Canada’s jails. (Article spelling this out is here)
Roughly 74 per cent of adult inmates in Manitoba jails in 2011 were aboriginal, according to the latest Stats Can numbers.
A shameful total that’s climbed in each of the the last five years despite the intent of the law of the land.
The wake of Ipeelee
Earlier this year, a shockwave went through Manitoba’s courts, prompted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Ipeelee.
Manitoba judges started loudly demanding Gladue-based information, and demanding proper waivers if the offender didn’t wish to pursue a report (they take weeks and weeks to prepare).
The high court in Ottawa had basically issued an edict: Criminal court judges of all stripes weren’t doing their jobs to look long and hard at Gladue factors each and every time they sentence an aboriginal offender. If they didn’t start doing so, the top court implied, judges could expect to start seeing appellate courts retooling their sentences.
That’s what happened in the above rape case.
It is apparent from Monnin’s ruling that the sentencing judge got a poorly/hastily written Gladue report from Manitoba Corrections that appeared to contain ‘cut and pasted’ material from other reports — hardly the individualized effort the law requires. The law, the Supreme Court says, is not to provide a “race-based discount” on sentencing, but to ensure the sentences handed out to aboriginal offenders were made in light of the necessary context.
“The judge had at his disposal a pre-sentence report that also purported to address the Gladue factors that a judge must consider when imposing a sentence on a person of aboriginal descent,” Monnin says.
“I say purported, because the only difference that I can see between the report that was presented to the judge and a commonly-prepared pre-sentence report was that it contained a short history of the accused’s home community and the general loss of culture and identity that has afflicted aboriginal communities generally. That portion of the report is a near mirror image of a report that was submitted [in another case.] …
… Furthermore, although the report states that it “will pay particular attention to the unique circumstances of the aforementioned aboriginal individual,” I remain hard-pressed to understand how it does so, or how it could have been helpful to the judge, or any other judge for that matter, to discharge his obligation to consider the Gladue principles in crafting an appropriate sentence of this accused.
The report, without wanting to criticize the individual who prepared it, but rather the system that permits it, reflects the problems raised by [Provincial Court Judge Fed Sandhu in an unrelated case where Sandhu talks of the lack of public confidence and respect for Gladue due to a lack of community-based and other resources to really put some teeth into the law.]
I mentioned above a “shockwave” that went through the courts at the time Ipeelee came down. It was apparent.
The net affect of the renewed focus on Gladue was for lawyers to start requesting more Gladue reports from Corrections.
My understanding of what happened is they were caught totally off guard and are still trying to keep up with the increased Gladue workload — including some totally novel requests from certain judges. [Side note, the report took weeks to prepare, came back and the judge said he didn't find it helpful at all in a bail setting.]
The pressure on Corrections to produce Gladue materials has sparked complaints from many lawyers who claim probation officers/report writers are simply doing “cut and paste” jobs [as referenced by Justice Monnin above] that may give the impression Gladue considerations are being given attention, but really, they’re not, in many — but not all — circumstances.
Then, quietly, a quandary developed when an NGO stepped in to fill the void.
A private aboriginal restorative justice agency in Winnipeg, Onashowewin, began writing full and comprehensive Gladue reports for offenders — reports that are repeatedly praised by judges for how informative and well-prepared they are.
Defence lawyers hipped to them in droves, many times forgoing the Corrections reports entirely.
I can’t tell you how many times the agency’s reports were lauded by judges. It’s clear from reading them that a lot of time and effort went into them.
Corrections, I’m told, got in a snit partly because the Onashowewin reports didn’t include any risk-analysis of the offender, as their mixed Gladue/pre-sentence reports do. Fair point.
Corrections won’t just write up a Gladue report without an accompanying pre-sentence report to go along with it.
The end result: Onashowewin, which receives government funding, recently introduced a new policy of charging $500 per offender for their Gladue reports.
Now, Legal Aid Manitoba is apparently balking at the notion of funding the private reports, a veteran defence lawyer said today.
Most, if not all, of the reports are written for indigent offenders depending on public representation to resolve their cases.
So I ask you — one way or another — is the system set up to truly honour the law of the land?
Today, the Court of Appeal said, ‘no, it’s not.’
And until that starts to happen, expect to see more sentences overturned.
[Another side note: for those interested in learning about virtually all the in's and outs of Gladue, its genesis and future uses in Manitoba should read The University of Manitoba's tremendous 'Gladue Handbook' recently produced by the Faculty of Law. A fascinating and worthy read.].
-30-
Shawn Lamb: the record, for the record
(Chris Procaylo/Winnipeg Sun/QMI)
In recent days, many have requested the publication of accused Winnipeg serial killer Shawn Lamb’s extensive record of criminal court convictions in full, given his case has raised so many questions about chronic offending.
I present it here, in full, for the public record.
Entries listed note the court centre where the convictions were entered, the charge and the resulting sentence imposed.
Background on what you’re about to read below can be found here, here, here, and here. And here.
- 1976/08/18 Toronto
Attempt Fraud
Conditional Discharge, 1 yr probation
- 1976/11/02 Barrie
Theft over $200
Theft under $200
Breach probation
Break, enter and commit offence
6 months jail on the theft over, with lesser periods noted concurrent on other charges.
- 1979/04/13 Barrie
Break, enter and theft
18 months jail, the sentence was appealed and reduced to 9 months
- 1979/05/30 Barrie
Break, enter and theft
6 months jail consecutive to sentence already being served
- 1979/09/25 Barrie
Possession of a narcotic
15 days jail
- 1979/11/27 Guelph
Escape lawful custody
9 months consecutive to sentence already being served, later appealed down to time in custody.
- 1979/12/14 Port Hope
Mischief
30 days concurrent with sentence already being served
- 1980/07/07 Barrie
Drug possession
Possess for the purpose of trafficking x2
9 months and probation on possession, 2 years on the trafficking counts.
- 1980/12/21 Winnipeg
Armed robbery
Assault peace officer x2
2 years on the robbery, 6 months on each of the assault PO counts (consecutive)
- 1984-04-18 Winnipeg
Assault causing bodily harm
5 months jail
- 1984-11-29 Winnipeg
Theft under $200
1 month jail
- 1985-02-28 Winnipeg
Assault cause bodily harm
Mischief
6 months on the assault, 1 month concurrent on mischief. Assault sentence was hiked on appeal to 12 months to be followed by 18 months of probation.
- 1987-03-11 Barrie
Assault x2
Assault
Fail comply with bail conditions
6 months consecutive on the first two assaults, 3 months each on the other assault and bail breach, consecutive.
- 1987-08-20 Guelph
Attempted obstruction of justice
Assault
Fail comply with bail conditions
Fail attend court (in Calgary, Alberta)
Theft over $1,000
Fail comply with probation order
5 months less a day on each charge, concurrent
- 1988-06-06 Chilliwack, British Columbia
Assault
30 days and 2 years of probation
- 1988-08-05 Vancouver
Care and control of a vehicle while over .08
$600 fine and 40 days time in custody noted
- 1989-04-19 Edmonton
Mischief
$250 fine and 10 days time in custody noted
- 1989-11-15 Edmonton
Utter threats
Possession of a weapon
1 day jail on each charge.
- 1990-01-29 Edmonton
Uttering a forged document
30 days jail
- 1990-07-12 Edmonton
Theft under $1,000
Obstruct peace officer
$200 and 15 days time served on the theft; $50 and three days time served on the obstruct
- 1990-07-16 Edmonton
Theft over $1,000
3 months
- 1991-02-21 Edmonton (RCMP High Prairie arrest)
Theft under $1,000 x2
Fail to appear
Fail to attend court
Fail bail condition
$200 fine on thefts plus 20 days jail, $100 fine on fail appear plus 10 days, $100 fine plus 10 days on attend court breach, $200 plus 20 days on bail breach
- 1991-03-13 Slave Lake
Assault
5 months jail
- 1991-08-01 Edmonton
Theft under $1,000
$50 fine and 10 days TIC
- 1992-02-06 Slave Lake (Slave Lake RCMP arrest)
Sexual assault
4 years prison plus a 5 year firearms prohibition
- 1992-06-08 Innisfail
Fail to comply with probation order
30 days concurrent with prison sentence
1993-06-17
PAROLED
1994-06-29
PAROLE VIOLATION, RECOMMITTED TO PRISON
1995-11-28
STATUTORY RELEASE
1995-11-28
STAT RELEASE VIOLATION, RECOMMITTED TO PRISON
- 1996-07-05 Edmonton
Assault
9 months
- 1997-07-09 Edmonton
Fail to appear
Theft under $5,000
1 day on fail to appear, $150 fine and three days TIC on theft
- 1997-12-19 Edmonton
Break, enter and theft
4 month conditional sentence and 1 year probation
- 1998-09-17 Winnipeg
Possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000
Public mischief
3 months on each charge consecutive plus two years of probation
- 1999-06-23 Winnipeg
Utter forged document
Possession of property obtained by crime
30 days jail and a restitution order
- 2000-01-14 Winnipeg
Utter forged document
Possess property obtained by crime over $5,000
Utter forged document
Possess property obtained by crime under $5,000
Fail to comply with bail condition
45-day intermittent sentence on first 2 charges, 30-days intermittent on next two, 1 day on the bail breach
- 2000-04-06 Winnipeg
Unlawfully at large
30 days consecutive to sentence already being served
- 2000-09-11 Winnipeg
Unlawfully in a dwelling house
Assault cause bodily harm
Fail to comply with probation order
2 years jail and two years of probation
- 2001-09-11 Winnipeg
Possess property obtained by crime under $5,000
Fraud over $5,000
1 year jail on each charge concurrent
2001-09-22 Winnipeg
Possess property obtained by crime under $5,000
Fraud over $5,000
1 year concurrent with sentence already running
- 2002-03-26 Winnipeg
Utter threats
Time served of 68 days
- 2003-04-25 Winnipeg
Theft under $5,000
Utter threats
Assault peace officer
Time served of 6 months and 7 days
- 2004-12-24 Winnipeg
Fail to comply with bail order x2
Fail to appear
Time served of 45 days on each charge concurrent
- 2005-06-30 Winnipeg
Utter forged document
Break, enter and theft
Theft under $5,000
Theft over $5,000
Posess. property obtained by crime under $5,000
12 months jail with 11 months TIC noted and 3 years probation
- 2006-08-31 Winnipeg
Assault peace officer
Possess property obtained by crime under $5,000
Time served of 115 days
- 2007-09-07 Winnipeg
Possession of property obtained by crime under $5,000
Theft under $5,000
Posession of stolen credit card
6 months jail and 274 days of pre-sentence custody noted
- 2008-11-07 Winnipeg
Carry concealed weapon
Possess property obtained by crime
Time served of 205 days
- 2009-01-16 Winnipeg
Attempted Robbery
18 months conditional sentence, 3 years probation, supervised
- 2010-05-26 Winnipeg
Possession of property obtained by crime — motor vehicle
Forgery x9
Theft under $5,000
Robbery with violence x2
13.5 months at double credit (27 months) noted, 19 months going forward AND the resumption of the 2009 conditional sentence order and the 3 years supervised probation.
-30-
Accused serial killer Shawn Lamb and ‘the pain of being a rabbit’
(Shawn Lamb is arrested by Winnipeg police/Chris Procaylo/Winnipeg Sun/QMI)
Accused serial killer Shawn Lamb didn’t want to talk to me today, instead referring me to his lawyer, Evan Roitenberg through a very polite officer at the Winnipeg Remand Centre.
Roitenberg, always a gentleman, politely declined to discuss the triple second-degree murder case, in which Lamb is presumed innocent. He said he had little information and was awaiting disclosure from the Crown via police.
But that doesn’t mean Lamb, a career criminal with more than 100 convictions on his record, doesn’t have things to say.
Below, is a verbatim reprint of a handwritten piece of his original musings submitted to Judge Linda Giesbrecht on May 26, 2010 — the day where Giesbrecht sentenced him to serve 19 more months and Lamb ended up serving 13, despite his record.
“I’m just a coward pretending not to be afraid, sounding confident powerful, looking bold and fearsome as I could rip off the heads of my opponents.
But in my belly the wee bottom of my little belly is a boy still afraid, feeling alone, unknown if what he has will be enough to win to survive.
Hoping only hoping in its place I could feel the anger slowly filling up my empty belly and I loved the anger. It killed fear. It was easier to attack than to run.
It felt better to be lion not a rabbit. Oh, the pain of being a rabbit.
Once upon a time there was born a baby boy, a lovely indian boy as sweet and fat cheeked and gifted by the crater as any baby anywhere.
Except for the slightly darker hair and skin, he would have looked like your little boy and like your little boy he was born innocent, as innocent as a puppy.
Now take a puppy, when he comes up to you, tail wagging, you pick him up and love him, if you kick that innocent puppy instead “just kick him” and when he’s hungry you throw him out in the cold without food, and when he wants to be warm and safe you let the vicious neighbourhood dogs rip and tear at him, well, what about that, puppy?
How will that innocent puppy grow up?
A baby doesn’t choose where or to whom he is born, nor nationality, think, the nationality of an innocent baby is judged, treated.
An innocent baby deserves not to be torn apart from its mother, well the baby is the wrong nationality, expendable, send the child away, damn the damage this may cause.
The innocent child’s mind can not understand, “who are these strangers?” “WHY?” Why do they tease and torment and hurt this child body and soul?
The child’s psyche tortured, and with the innocent wonder of a child he can’t understand why the rights that even a puppy understands were taken from him, why as a member of this human species on the face of the earth he was do despised when he was so innocent.
He has only loved his mother, he had only done no wrong, but he was so despised and he felt the horrid heat of hate against him — why did they stomp out the last tiny vestiges of self-worth from this child? What wrong had he committed? Why was he kicked and beaten, raped and abused in both mind and body? Why?
The pain, the shame, the guilt, the confusion, this lost soul of a child (illegible word).
A path of anger, stealing, living on the streets, never enough drugs to escape the pain, dull the memories, the nightmares. A young boy in a man prison, a lost young man in prison, a middle-aged man in prison throughout all, a dim light, glimmer of hope a feeling of worth.
Ask for help unload the shame.
I’m wanting and worthy of a better life!”
-30-
Accused serial killer Shawn Lamb and ‘the pain of being a rabbit’
Accused serial killer Shawn Lamb didn’t want to talk to me today, instead referring me to his lawyer, Evan Roitenberg through a very polite officer at the Winnipeg Remand Centre.
Roitenberg, always a gentleman, politely declined to discuss the triple second-degree murder case, in which Lamb is presumed innocent. He said he had little information and was awaiting disclosure from the Crown via police.
But that doesn’t mean Lamb, a career criminal with more than 100 convictions on his record, doesn’t have things to say.
Below, is a verbatim reprint of a piece of his original writing submitted to Judge Linda Giesbrecht on May 26, 2010 — the day where Giesbrecht sentenced him to serve 19 more months and Lamb ended up serving 13, despite his record.
“I’m just a coward pretending not to be afraid, sounding confident powerful, looking bold and fearsome as I could rip off the heads of my opponents.
But in my belly the wee bottom of my little belly is a boy still afraid, feeling alone, unknown if what he has will be enough to win to survive.
Hoping only hoping in its place I could feel the anger slowly filling up my empty belly and I loved the anger. It killed fear. It was easier to attack than to run.
It felt better to be lion not a rabbit. Oh, the pain of being a rabbit.
Once upon a time there was born a baby boy, a lovely indian boy as sweet and fat cheeked and gifted by the crater as any baby anywhere.
Except for the slightly darker hair and skin, he would have looked like your little boy and like your little boy he was born innocent, as innocent as a puppy.
Now take a puppy, when he comes up to you, tail wagging, you pick him up and love him, if you kick that innocent puppy instead “just kick him” and when he’s hungry you throw him out in the cold without food, and when he wants to be warm and safe you let the vicious neighbourhood dogs rip and tear at him, well, what about that, puppy?
How will that innocent puppy grow up?
A baby doesn’t choose where or to whom he is born, nor nationality, think, the nationality of an innocent baby is judged, treated.
An innocent baby deserves not to be torn apart from its mother, well the baby is the wrong nationality, expendable, send the child away, damn the damage this may cause.
The innocent child’s mind can not understand, “who are these strangers?” “WHY?” Why do they tease and torment and hurt this child body and soul?
The child’s psyche tortured, and with the innocent wonder of a child he can’t understand why the rights that even a puppy understands were taken from him, why as a member of this human species on the face of the earth he was do despised when he was so innocent.
He has only loved his mother, he had only done no wrong, but he was so despised and he felt the horrid heat of hate against him — why did they stomp out the last tiny vestiges of self-worth from this child? What wrong had he committed? Why was he kicked and beaten, raped and abused in both mind and body? Why?
The pain, the shame, the guilt, the confusion, this lost soul of a child (illegible word).
A path of anger, stealing, living on the streets, never enough drugs to escape the pain, dull the memories, the nightmares. A young boy in a man prison, a lost young man in prison, a middle-aged man in prison throughout all, a dim light, glimmer of hope a feeling of worth.
Ask for help unload the shame.
I’m wanting and worthy of a better life!”
Why was Shawn Lamb out of jail?
(Carolyn Sinclair)
Looking at the math, either I’m missing something about the recent release date of accused serial killer Shawn Lamb, or we need to seriously re-examine the early-release provisions regarding career criminals.
Today, Lamb is facing three second-degree murder charges in connection to the deaths of:
Tanya Nepinak (on Sept. 13, 2011)
Carolyn Sinclair (Dec. 18, 2011)
Lorna Blacksmith (Jan. 11, 2012)
On May 26, 2010, Lamb was sentenced by Judge Linda Giesbrecht (now retired) to the following after admitting guilt to 16 charges, including two violent robberies of innocent people.
27 months at double credit (his charges pre-dated the legislative amendment forbidding granting this to him) for time served on the robberies.
PLUS 19 months going forward of real jail for possession of property obtained by crime and forgery and theft, fraud and utter forged documents.
ONLY after this period of jail was served would the many months remaining on a Conditional Sentence he was given in Jan. 2009 for attempted robbery then begin to resume (to be followed by three years of supervised probation — court heard the sentence handed down in May 2010 would ultimately mean he’d be supervised in various forms for six years).
The Crown attorney was very specific in how she wanted the sentence structured.
If he was sentenced to 19 months real jail, that takes us to December 2011 before that in-custody period expired.
Looking at the offence dates police say the women were killed, that raises an issue. It would appear, on the surface, that Lamb was released many months prior to when he was supposed to be from a provincial jail.
I can accept in some cases early-release provisions apply for both federal and provincial inmates.
But in Lamb’s case, I can’t. This is an accused person with more than 100 prior convictions, many of them for violent acts and court order breaches — along with parole and statutory release violations.
How it was determined that he be granted early release — given his prior history — needs to be examined in detail.
Why was Shawn Lamb out of jail?
(Carolyn Sinclair)
Looking at the math, either I’m missing something about the recent release date of accused serial killer Shawn Lamb, or we need to seriously re-examine the early-release provisions regarding career criminals.
Today, Lamb is facing three second-degree murder charges in connection to the deaths of:
Tanya Nepinak (on Sept. 13, 2011)
Carolyn Sinclair (Dec. 18, 2011)
Lorna Blacksmith (Jan. 11, 2012)
On May 26, 2010, Lamb was sentenced by Judge Linda Giesbrecht (now retired) to the following after admitting guilt to 16 charges, including two violent robberies of innocent people.
27 months at double credit (his charges pre-dated the legislative amendment forbidding granting this to him) for time served on the robberies.
PLUS 19 months going forward of real jail for possession of property obtained by crime and forgery and theft, fraud and utter forged documents.
ONLY after this period of jail was served would the many months remaining on a Conditional Sentence he was given in Jan. 2009 for attempted robbery then begin to resume (to be followed by three years of supervised probation — court heard the sentence handed down in May 2010 would ultimately mean he’d be supervised in various forms for six years).
The Crown attorney was very specific in how she wanted the sentence structured.
If he was sentenced to 19 months real jail, that takes us to December 2011 before that in-custody period expired.
Looking at the offence dates police say the women were killed, that raises an issue. It would appear, on the surface, that Lamb was released many months prior to when he was supposed to be from a provincial jail.
I can accept in some cases early-release provisions apply for both federal and provincial inmates.
But in Lamb’s case, I can’t. This is an accused person with more than 100 prior convictions, many of them for violent acts and court order breaches — along with parole and statutory release violations.
How it was determined that he be granted early release — given his prior history — needs to be examined in detail.
‘We’re treating your body as a crime scene’ — Laporte trial notebook 2
(Winnipeg Law Courts/Winnipeg Sun File)
Editor’s note: This post contains foul language.
“We’re treating your body as a crime scene.”
That’s what Peter Laporte was told while cuffed and being held at bay by three police officers in a third-floor interview room at the city’s Public Safety Building early on Nov. 24, 2008.
The comment was made by now-Det. Sgt. Mark Philippot of the Winnipeg Police Service, called to testify this week in Laporte’s ongoing sexual assault trial in Winnipeg.
Laporte has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent of all charges he currently faces.
Currently, the Crown and Laporte are locked in a high-stakes Charter rights-related battle over the admissibility of evidence gathered from penile swabs taken about five hours after his arrest at a Cumberland Avenue apartment block.
Laporte is arguing police stomped on his fundamental rights in how the swabs (a non-invasive procedure where cops use a wet and dry cotton swab to mop a suspect’s penis to gather evidence) were collected.
Philippot testified that after almost immediately after receiving information from child abuse investigators that a boy had disclosed been anally raped, it was his right to go in and get the swab samples.
“There’s no warrant required here,” Philippot said, explaining that in his experience, there’s no need for cops to get a warrant to take the samples, even if Laporte was unwilling to offer them as it’s considered incident to arrest.
One of the major issues Queen’s Bench Justice Perry Schulman will have to wrestle with is this: Laporte repeatedly requested (I’m being generous here, see below) to speak with a lawyer prior to the samples being taken, but cops didn’t comply.
Why is that? Don’t they have to? (Question is silently mine, sitting watching the proceedings)
According to Philippot, then a sex-crimes unit investigator (now homicide detective), the denial of Laporte’s “phone call” (to be cliche about it) had a lot to do with his demeanour and attitude.
A video of Laporte’s interactions with Philippot was played in court, starting from the time general patrol officers brought him into the interview room and put him on continuous video.
The video starts with a short haired, moustachioed Laporte, wearing a black T-shirt and shorts, being escorted into the room. “Do not kick,” he’s warned.
Earlier this week, we covered how cops viewed Laporte as combative and violent with them.
22:28 Nov 23, 2008: Philippot, not necessarily an imposing physical presence, enters the room.
“I’ve done nothing,” Laporte tells him.
“What’s your first name?” asks Philippot, trying to fill out a required prisoner’s log sheet that asks a number of questions of a suspect (it’s a matter of routine).
“I want to talk to my lawyer,” he’s told. Laporte moves to cradle his arms on the small table in front of him.
Philippot gets up and leaves for about an hour. The video is skipped ahead by Crown John Field.
23:36: Laporte is seen lying on the floor of the interview room. Oddly, the sounds of Radiohead’s ‘Karma Police’ can be heard in the hallway outside the door. (cops play music so suspects can’t hear anything that’s going on in the office).
’For a minute there, I lost myself, I lost myself,’ wails Thom Yorke.
The music ends.
In the process, Laporte gets up, gets back in the chair as Philippot re-enters the room, again, ostensibly to try and get the log sheet filled out. Laporte again requests to speak with a lawyer.
Philippot asks him the standard question: Are you part of a gang?
“Go fuck yourself,” says Laporte.
Philippot repeats the question, prompting anger to literally erupt out of Laporte.
“Look at me, take a good look at me you fucking piece of shit,” he barks. “Go fuck yourself.”
Philippot doesn’t waver.
“I’ll put you as uncooperative right now for your behaviour,” he says in a measured tone, apparently unmoved or riled by Laporte’s ire. He verbally notes and jots down a few minor scrapes and cuts he has on him.
The “interview” progresses to the point that Philippot tells him he’s being arrested for sexual assault “or some similar offence” times three, and offers Laporte notice of his rights to counsel.
“Beat it you fucking clown, you fucking monkey,” Laporte spits.
His rant continues, rising and ducking in force.
“Go fuck yourself you fucking goof… you fucking piece of shit,” he exclaims.
He’s asked again if he wants to call a lawyer.
“Beat it — take your suit and shove it up your ass,” Laporte spits.
“Beat it clown. Beat it. Beat it.”
Philippot exits, and reemerges a few minutes later.
12:12 (Nov. 24, 2008) Laporte says he wants to call lawyer Ian Garber. He’s asked if he has his number. The angry tirade renews.
“I’m being reasonable with you,” says Philippot. Do you want a lawyer?
“Poop your fucking head,” Laporte says.
“Poop my head, is that what you’re saying?,” Philippot asks, and again leaves.
Laporte lays his head on the table.
The tone changes roughly six minutes later.
00:19 Philippot re-enters, this time with latex gloves on and patrol cops in tow. He tells Laporte officers are seizing his clothing as part of their investigation.
“No, you don’t get my clothes,” he says.
Laporte is told cops are going to take penile swabs from him.
“I think not,” he says. “You guys remember the last time you took one. We’ll do this on (inaudible) way. Call my lawyer and fuck off,” he says, moments later adding if cops want his clothes, they going to have to “tear ‘em off me.”
So, essentially, they do. Not tear, anyways, but remove by the application of force.
Laporte is pushed up against a wall out of camera sight and cuffed.
“Stop resisting,” he’s told. “Keep that foot down.”
Then, dear reader, the screaming begins. It’s hard to hear.
Laporte howls and cries and then howls some more in what sounds like — sounds like — sheer, utter agony.
His clothes are removed and bagged, piece by piece.
They move to take his shorts. More howls.
“I’m not doing anything to you. That’s just you screaming,” one of the four cops says.
When they move for the white socks Laporte’s wearing, the screams take on a tone of unadulterated rage.
He’s told he’s just fine. “Fuck you,” he responds. “Get the fucking handcuffs off me,” he shouts.
“Because you’re being aggressive with us this is what we’re forced to do here,” a cop says.
At this point, the tape is stopped. Philippot is still on the witness stand.
“You’ve heard screaming several times. What’s that?” asked Field.
“I can only give you my opinion,” said Philippot, explaining the cuffs were placed on Laporte for officer safety.
“No one was applying any pressure to him,” he says. He’d just scream,” later testifying: “I don’t know why he’s screaming.”
The video is started again. Now, cops are obtaining the contentious penile swabs.
“We’re treating your body as a crime scene,” Philippot tells Laporte.
The process is explained again.
“I’m HIV positive,” Laporte says.
“Thanks for sharing it with us,” says Philippot.
More yowls of rage.
“Just relax now,” Laporte is told.
“Fuck you,” he says.
The tape again is stopped. “What’s he screaming about?,” Field asks.
Philippot explains that the process is non-invasive. Basically, one of two swabs obtained is soaked with distilled water and then rubbed on the shaft and tip of the penis. The other is bone dry.
The video resumes.
Prior to the first swab being taken, Laporte cries: “Why are you doing this to me?” and then asks to use the washroom. “Okay, enough,” he exclaims.
“I gave you the opportunity to do this yourself,” says Philippot.
“It hurts!,” cries Laporte. “My fucking wrists!” He comments that his wrists were bleeding.
The video is again halted. Philippot says there’s no indication Laporte’s wrists were bleeding, cops in fact, by this point, had loosened his cuffs somewhat.
Field: We’ve just heard copious amounts of screaming,” he says.
“I don’t know why he was screaming,” says Philippot.
The video resumes, largely more of the same.
“Fuck you, Not fair, not fucking fair,” Laporte is heard saying.
“What’s not fair?,” he’s asked.
He doesn’t reply.
Oddly, Philippot asks the court to stop the video so he can comment. As you can see, he tells Schulman, we loosened his cuffs.
“I don’t see why the screaming was happening,” he says.
Tape resumes: Laporte is escorted to the washroom, and then given some water and left alone in the room again by 00:37.
Video ends.
Field: A decision was made to take the swabs. How did that come to pass?
Philippot: It’s part of the sex crimes investigative process. In Laporte’s case, he testified, his “hostile and volatile” demeanour kind of predicated how it would go down, that the decision to take the swabs was made after a boy disclosed being anally raped, and cops wanted to preserve evidence. The boy’s disclosure was “grounds enough” to get the swabs.
Philippot says it was the first time in his career he’s ever had to use force to get the swabs, that usually the suspect is allowed to gather them under their own power. “Normally,” he said, “They do it themselves.”
Interestingly, Philippot remarked that studies have shown how 75 per cent of penile swabs net DNA evidence, compared with 25 per cent of vaginal swabs.
The key is gathering the sample in time, he said. “The longer you wait … the more opportunity you have to lose it,” he says.
But why do it with four cops and handcuffs?
Philippot: considering Laporte’s “hostile and volatile” demeanour, it was necessary. “I just felt as best practice for officer safety” — and Laporte’s own safety.
“In this case, for safety reasons, because of his attitude, we decided to go that way.” “It took four officers just to get has arms behind him,” said Philippot.
As for giving Laporte a phonebook to look up a lawyer’s number, his demeanour precluded that from happening, the cop said.
The cross-examination:
Philippot is asked how many people could have walked by and seen what was happening in the interview room (privacy rights breach?).
Philippot says setting aside the four in the room itself, there were about 18 other cops that could have walked past.
What about Laporte’s repeated demands to speak to a lawyer when the interview first began?
Well, Philippot said, there was the matter of getting that preliminary, but mandatory, prisoner log sheet taken care of first.
He said as the interviewer, he was required to feel comfortable to know that Laporte was, in fact, Laporte.
“I want to know who I’m dealing with. Get a bit of a background here,” he said.
What about when he specifically mentions wanting to speak with Ian Garber?
“I’m not going to give him a phonebook at that time,” said Philippot, “(Or) introduce any kind of weapon into the room,” he said, again referencing Laporte’s demeanour.
How can you take a potentially-incriminating swab from a suspect when they haven’t talked to a lawyer yet?
It’s a matter of generally-accepted practice, said Philippot. “Generally, I would take the swab before giving them access to counsel,” he said, later adding it was taken as soon as possible after learning there may be evidence to be gained from it.
He was unyielding in his answers: There is no requirement to let a person talk to a lawyer prior to obtaining the swab, even though it could be incriminating.
“There’s no warrant required here,” he said.
-30-
