Friday, June 19, 2009

TN! of the week: Helen Roberts, Federal Government Lawyer at the Braidwood Inquiry

Who would have thought the Braidwood inquiry would take such a major turn "before" closing arguments ?

Today it was revealed that a crucial email was "overlooked" by the legal team representing the Government of Canada.

In the now partly disclosed email, Supt. Dick Bent writes to an RCMP Assistant Commissioner that the four officers responsible for the killing of Dziekanski "had discussed [their] response en route [to the airport,] that if [Dziekanski] did not comply that they would go to [use the taser]".

This appears to contradict earlier made statements by the four officers; they all testified in court that no discussion on how to respond had taken place prior to entering the airport.

Sounds like signs of cover-up to me.

Helen Roberts apologized today for the "overlooked" email from Bent, but, for someone who has been following this inquiry closely, I find it very hard to believe that such a damning email can so easily be overlooked; of course this legal team wanted to protect the government and its subsidiaries from blame, and given they were the single collector of government dossiers they had the intend, means and the opportunity.

Taser-Nazi of the Week
However appalling the above might read to you, it's not the sole reason why Helen Roberts got nominated for being the Taser-Nazi of the Week. After all, my explanation is still nothing more than speculation on WHY she and her team "overlooked" such a crucial email.

Neither did she get nominated for breaking out in tears: these are stressful times for everyone involved, including Helen Roberts and her Mounties.

What got her nominated was the content of her tearful explanation. She simply kept in line with her "old" narrative, propping up the cops's version of the truth that they never had any conversation about how to respond before getting to the airport, and that Bent was, how did she put that again, simply "mistaken."

A mistake, that explains it, right?

Helen Roberts, dismissing crucial evidence as a "mistake" while withholding this highly contradictory evidence coming from a top RCMP brass has gotten you nominated for Taser-Nazi of the week.

Congratulations!

UPDATE 1: This post called "Canada: Cover-up of RCMP murder of immigrant worker unravels" on the World Socialist website should not be missed

UPDATE 2: I agree with Vancouver Sun's conclusion of the column Mounties in Tasering should face prosecution: "That was not an "oversight." It was professional incompetence or a cover-up."

2 comments:

David said...

I was on the road when I heard the reports on the radio, and unfortunately I was not surprised in the least. It just saddens me that these four pathetic excuses for RCMP officers haven't had the balls to do the right thing and resign. Kudos to you nominating Ms. Roberts as taser nazi of the week, as I was utterly revolted when I heard the tearful excuse she made. Christ, but who cries in situations like that, except those people putting on some kind of show?

Eric said...

"It just saddens me that these four pathetic excuses for RCMP officers haven't had the balls to do the right thing and resign."

Obviously the four officers' tasering combined with their own acts of covering it up was a crime, but I believe there is far more to this case than the eye initially meets.

Every day it becomes more clear that the RCMP's top level bureaucrats (such as Wayne Rideout and Dick Bent) are complicit if not outright responsible for this cover up.

Let's also not forget that "full support" of the killing came from the ultimate top, nobody less than Gordon Campbell; top>down fascist neo-con ideology is at the heart if this case, it's now up to lawyers and journalists to unravel this.

"But who cries in situations like that"

I actually think Helen Roberts showed remorse, at least at some level. To me it looked like she finally realized how much she had been part of a cover-up operation (consciously or not) and therefore found it emotionally hard to continue (who wouldn't?) with all the rubbish that followed.

But she did. She had most likely worked her ass off in the last 36 hours to get evidence from those involved to support her "old" narrative, which would have enabled her to complete her closing arguments.

Fortunately, to no avail.

Post a Comment