|
Saskatchewan
Memo randum in Klassen/Kvello appeal
 Explosive: The
Mikolajewski Report (pdf file) exposes the shoddy work done
on the Barbara Stoppel murder investigation and how Winnipeg
Chief Jack Ewatski helped block a proper re-investiagtion to
protect a retired inspector and the secrets a warranted search
of his premises would reveal. Terry Arnold: Another
snitch dead Also : Blogging
RCMP informants
Sermonette
: April, 2005
A print or some blood
may be quite instrumental
But malice is the Crown's best friend . . .
Accountability: The crown
and social workers need malice
(That is
they need to bend the law to purposes other than justice)
Richard Klassen has been pressing
the Saskatchewan government to get moving its appeal against
Judge Baynton's findings of malice by prosecutor Matt Miazga
and government contracted therapist Carol Bunko-Ruys. Last week
Klassen received a reply from Quennell who declared that the
government was taking great care with this appeal because it
had such important implications for the public.
That public would not be the
80 per cent of Saskatchewan citizens who were polled after the
judgment came down: it was made clear that we wanted the government
to make a fair settlement, and that we wanted accountability
from our public officials to ensure this would not happen again.
It has been made clear from Quennell and Crawford's extraordinary
intervention in the Vopni case that they have no intention of
accounting for themselves.
The public to which Quennell
is referring are those government officials who need malice as
an important part of their investigation and prosecution strategy.
The Memorandum
the Saskatchewan government has prepared as part of its application
for intervenor status is interesting. I would appear to have
been done with a word processor: The writer of the memo has done
a search of Judge Baynton's decision and everywhere the word
'malice' occurs, he/she has referred to it as an error of law!
I have cross-referenced the memo with the actual judgment so
it is easy to see what I'm talking about. (Just roll your mouse
over the memo text, click to go to the judgment and use your
back-button key to return to the memo.) This would be hilarious
were it not so important to the public. Not only have some of
our police, prosecutors and social workers abused their offices
but our elected officials now seek to further insult our intelliegence
with claims tha a judgment which is very much in our interest
is not.
I repeat: they need malice!
They cannot bring themselves to account for their behavior because
we would find out just how important malice is to keep their
hearts beating.
This is not an isolated Saskatchewan
phenomenon, of course. Eric Cline was cynically right when, as
Justice Minister and Attorney General he made the comment that
much more malicious acts were occurring south of the border and
by comparison, Saskatchewan was in pretty good shape. Corruption
is relative and we are relatively less corrupt.
The FBI was forced this year
to pay $6.6M to Chicago policemen Steven
Manning they had framed twice for murder. The agents who
framed him did not have to account for themselves and were praised
as excellent employees by the federal prosecutor who acted for
them in the civil claim.
Malice is a good thing; getting
caught is a bad thing. But being allowed to continue with malicious
prosecutions is more important than occasionally getting caught
framing innocent people. As things stand getting caught doesn't
cost them anything. It all comes from public money which they
spend with reckless abandon. Dueck's extravagent spending on
the Klassen/Kvello frame up would come to millions in today's
economy. What the Saskatoon Police paid to defend him was far
more than they paid out in damages.
Frank Quennell needs his malice.
And he needs it badly! Because if the Saskatchewan government
loses this appeal, it sets precedent for other justice departments
to lose their malice. Cops, crowns and social workers across
the continent will all have to be more careful about how they
prepare the evidence they bring before the judge.
Malice is deliberate deception
of the court. It is deliberately using a public office for purposes
not consistent with the law. The RCMP scenario stings performed
by the RCMP and the OPP are malicious.
The withholding of evidence
is malicious.
If the Baynton judgment is
allowed to stand, honest judges all over the country will be
emboldened to call malice for what it is.
The next step in this accountability
process must be to make the malicious individuals account for
themselves by losing their jobs and/or going to jail.
The Big International Conference
planned for Winnipeg in October does not have as part of its
agenda just what they will do to halt wrongful convictions once
they have thoroughly stroked each others' inquiries and reports
and satisfied themselves they know how they happen. In Canada
we need a provision in the criminal code whereby prosecutors
can be prosecuted and there must be guidelines for stiff sentencing.
In the meantime, Frank Quennell
has had plenty of time to prepare his appeal against the Klassens
and Kvellos. He had better get on with it. Richard Klassen had
already advised him to go directly to the Supreme Court if he
wanted clarification. That is probably where the case is going
to end up. The strategy of waiting us all out, counting on the
public to forget is outworn inow that we have the internet. We
got this case into the public eye and we will keep it here.
We want a world that is safe
for honest cops, honest prosecutors and honest social workers
The only way they can be safe is if we lock up those who make
their work so difficult. If Richard Quinney and Matt Miazga had
been locked up, Terry Hinz would have felt safe to stop the Klassen
Kvello prosecutions before they began.. If Dueck and former Chief
Dave Scott had been locked up many innocent people would have
been spared from wrongful charges. We have now learned that former chief Joe Penkala
took the Gail Miller file home. This served to keepDigaard in
prison while protecting RCMP informant Larry Fisher.
The following
full 17 page report was given to and is addressed to Winnipeg
Police Chief Jack Ewatski October 16, 2002.
(Page 3-7)
1. Search Warrant
for Inspector Ken Bieners Residence
The Barbara Stoppel/Thomas
Sophonow re-investigation team was assigned to take a fresh approach
to the case with "New eyes". As a result members having
no ties with the case or the Homicide unit were selected.
I believe that an external
body should have headed the re-investigation. It has been noted
that "Outside investigation is required if systemic, organizational,
and management failings are to be revealed." (6). Investigators
from the service should be assigned in this regard but they should
be under the direction of an impartial independent supervisor.
The reasoning is self-evident: "Internal investigation is
compromised from the outset as self-interest acts to protect
the organization from civil Liability. (7)
Due to the fact that this investigation
would entail detailed internal scrutiny and eventually a public
inquiry, the need for an external control would have been highlighted.
As a result public perception may deem our efforts as tainted.
An example of such a perception is as follows:
During the course of the Barbara
Stoppel Murder re-investigation it was discovered that retired
Inspector Ken Biener destroyed numerous exhibits in the case.
It was my opinion that Biener had retained some exhibits and
that they were still in his possession at his residence. as a
result I established what I believed to be grounds for a search
warrant.
The importance of obtaining
a warrant and retrieving the exhibits cannot be over stressed
since they may provide the offenders DNA. Of equal importance
failing to obtain these exhibits would result in no charges being
laid against a suspect without a confession (reflected in case
law and discussions with crown counsel).
As a result I discussed the
merits of obtaining a search warrant with Sgt. Vogen on several
occasions. He related that this would not be his decision and
that it would be up to "Them" (The Executive). I pursued
this matter further on 00 03 26 March 26, 2000 by speaking to
you in person. In response to my desire to obtain a warrant you
replied, "We can't do that he's a retired Inspector."
This comment was made in front of Sgt. Vogen and Crown Attorney
Rick Saull.
On 00 04 07 April 7, 2000 I
met with Crown attorneys Rick Saull and Dale Schille. We discussed
the missing exhibits in the case and again stressed the importance
of obtaining them. I advised that I would again recommend a search
warrant for Ken Bieners residence that was met with support.
On 00 04 20 April 10, 2000
I spoke with Sgt. Vogen again in an effort to obtain a search
warrant for Bieners residence. I stressed that an outside agency
looking in would criticize us for not being impartial and thorough.
My efforts may have been firther complicated by the fact that
Sgt. Vogen worked under Inspector Biener in the Youth Division.
On 00 04 17 April 17, 2000
I met with Inspector McCaskill and again advised him of all the
grounds I had to obtain a warrant. Inspector McCaskill indicated
that he did no know al the information before but would take
it up with the Executive. I again stressed the importance of
obtaining the warrant and retrieving the missing exhibits.
On 00 04 30 April 30, 2000
I spoke with Cst. John Birchill. He advised that you had decided
that Ken Biener was to be interviewed regarding the destruction
of exhibits but this was NOT to be done under charge and caution.
Further we were NOT to obtain a search warrant.
I truly believed that somehow
the message might have been misinterpreted since it made no sense
to me. As a result I contacted Sgt. Vogen at home on 00 05 04
May 4, 2000 . He stated that
1. Per Inspector McCaskill there was to be NO search warrant
at Bieners residence.
2. Per Inspector McCaskill Biener was NOT to be charge and cautioned
even if he brought exhibits to the interview.
I again expressed my dissatisfaction
with the decision and advised that the investigation was being
jeopardized. However at the time I felt compelled to do as I
was told as outlined in section 10.01 "Members shall obey
a lawful order or directive issued by a member senior in rank."
After much reflection I now do not believe that this was a "Lawful
Order."
On 00 05 05 May 5, 2000, I
contacted retired Inspector Ken Biener and requested that he
attend to our office for an interview. I further requested that
he bring his notebooks pertaining to the Stoppel case and all
exhibits he had in his possession. Biener denied having any exhibitsbut
agreed to the interview. I relayed that I knew he had further
exhibits and stressed that we required them in order to proceed
against the new suspect. Biener later accused me of "Trick
Fucking" him into bringing the exhibits. On this charge
I am guilty but I had no other recourse available to me.
On 00 05 10 May 10, 2000 retired
Inspector Ken Biener attended to out office at 850 Empress in
possession of his notebooks. After approx 1 hour he admitted
destroying most of the exhibits and advised he had some others
in his trunk. He then turned over a box of exhibits from the
case including the belt Barbara Stoppel was wearing at the time
of her Murder, which was never tested at the Crime Lab. Following
my orders Ken Biener was not chartered.
On 00 05 11 May 11, 2000 Sgt.
Vogel and I reported in person to the Executive. Present were
you, D/Chief Thompson, Inspector McCaskill, and Police Legal
Counsel Inspector Schumacher. After relating the results of the
interview I concluded that i did not have any more grounds for
a warrant to Bieners residence nor did I believe he would be
charged since I had not cautioned him.
Late this date I spoke with
Crown Rick Saull and updated him on the incident. At this point
Saull now stated that it was a confession case and no charges
could be laid against a new suspect.
Some of the more important
exhibits still outstanding in the case are:
1.Barbara Stoppels Bra.
2.Barbara Stoppels underwear
3.Her shoes and socks
4.A kleenex with mucous believed to be the killers.
I remain perplexed by the decision
to to obtain a search warrant. I voiced my displeasure to Sgt.
Vogen who simply stated that it was not his decision.
John H. conditt of the FNI
wrote: "Citizens bestow great power and authority upon their
law enforcement organizations. They expect and deserve accountability
from their law enforcement public servants and demand that these
organizations display a high degree of Integrity." (8).
He states further, ". . . thoroughness is vitally important
to the internal investigative process." (9)
It is my opinion that we were
not thorough in this case nor did we display a great deal of
integrity. I am equally frustrated that I had nowhere to go with
my concerns. I addressed my issues with Sgt. Vogen, Inspector
McCaskill, other investigators and the Chief of Police. I do
not believe that the results/ decision would have been the same
had Ken Biener been a retired Constable. In fact if we can obtain
a warrant for storn C.D's at the residence of a Constable, why
can't we obtain a warrant for exhibits in a murder case at a
retired Inspectors residence?
There is a possibility that
retired Inspector Biener had the remaining missing exhibits prior
to my phone call and may have subsequently destroyed them. If
this was the case we lost our only hope of DNA comparison and
thereby any chance of a successful conclusion to this case.
It is my opinion that if an
independent commission were assigned to this case a warrant would
have been executed. I do not believe that I was allowed to do
my job. Further, both Barbara Stoppel and her family have not
been served well. In fact Rick Stoppel knows that there was no
warrant and will be pursuing the matter further. Rob Finlayson
advised him of this. It is for this reason as well that I am
addressing the issue.
I strongly recommend that future
cases of this type be independent and that the persons involved
herein be considered for charges of obstruct justice, obstruct
peace officer and discreditable conduct if warranted.
2. Delayed
interview of Terry Arnold
Terry Samuel Arnold has been
defined as a "person of interest" in the Barbara Stoppel
Murder investigation. As previously indivated it has become a
confession case. In this regard the investigative team determined
the timing of a hard interview was crucial in order to have any
success. It would also be a psychological battle of will with
the suspect. Without going into the details pf the investigation
I will simply state that the crucial time for interviewing Arnold
was first requested on 00 10 18 October 18, 2000. Investigators
Robert Legge/Paul Brown and Murray Allan agreed.
On 00 11 06 November 6, 2000
d/Sgt Legge submitted a memo addressed to you again requesting
an interview with Arnold in early December and outlining the
merits of it. These recommendations were turned down.
Rue to the fact that Ken Biener
had destroyed exhibits, and kept exhibits in his residence and
Ken Biener was to testify at the inquiry it was imperative to
interview Arnold as soon as possible. If the inquiry revealed
this information Arnold would know we had no case and an interview
would be fruitless (Unfortunately this was the case and the information
was later revealed in the inquiry). In fact even Rick Stoppel
brought up this concern with you and requested an early interview.
Our Investigative team repeatedly
requested an early interview to supervisors on 00 11 30 &
00 12 04 to no avail. Inspector McCaskill later advised me that
the media release of Sophows exoneration was put off for several
weeks due to negative "press" from the 911 incident.
The Interview in turn was put off due to the pressure of the
Inquiry. These issues had nothing to do with the murder investigation.
On 01 01 17 January 17, 2001
I received information that Arnold had new hope for an appeal
and was feeling confident that he would get a new trial. The
timing for an interview was now becoming problematic as we feared
we were losing momentum. On 01 02 22 February 22, 2001 D/Sgt
Legge presented a 2 team interview approach which is supported
by Crown Rick Saull. It is also suggested to have the interview
soon.
In summary we requested an
interview with the suspect on 00 10 16 October 16, 2000 and were
not approved to do so until 01 03 07 March 7, 2001 resulting
in a five month delay. The main reason given to this team for
the delays focused on the inquiry. It may be said that the interests
of the City at the time superseded the interests of the Murder
investigation. Having an independent commissioner in charge would
have eliminated any such possible perception.
3. Chief Ewatski's
comments on CJOB 02 04 03 April 3, 2002
During the course of this re-investigation
I was assigned to act as liaison with the Stoppel family. This
involved hundreds of hours of my own time that I found very rewarding.
It was with great satisfaction that they received partial disclosure
to this tragedy that has caused them over 20 years of pain.
On 02 04 03 April 3, 2002 I
received a call from Rick Stoppel who was extremely disappointed
with what he had heard on CJOB's Adler show from you. I also
listened to the comments and found them disturbing. Of particular
note are the following (Re the Stoppel case).
"We have really left no
stone unturned in this homocide investigation."
"We are continuing to
work on it on a daily basis."
"We have put members from
out homocide unit other specially trained officers that have
skills and abilities that can investigate historical homocides
they have been working on fthis for over 2 years now nothing
but this file itself."
"I'm optimistic that continuing
with the investigation the way we are doing in a very comprehensive
manner that one day we will gather enough evidence to lay a charge
against the person responsible for the murder of Barbara Stoppel."
Unfortunately our "ongoing"
investigation was disbanded approx 1 year earlier and even our
phone lines were disconnected. You referred to this "ongoing"
investigation on several other occasions earlier prompting me
to ask Sgt. Vogen is there was anything ongoing. He replied with
laughter and a "No." This was confirmed by other former-members
of the unit and Inspector McCaskill.
This has now brought mistrust
with the Stoppel family and thereby brought discredit upon the
reputation of the Service. Once again I have no venue to address
my concerns since there is no independent body. The Stoppels
are left to wonder what exactly has changed over the pst 20 years.
Moreover provincial victims legislation does not appear to have
been followed.
I recommend that an independent
body be assigned and discern whether refulatory charges of deceit
and discreditable conduct are in order against you.
End of sermonette. Sheila
Steele, April 1, 2005, continued >
> >
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd.