Front Burner - Skepticism around inquiry, charges in N.S. massacre

Episode Date: February 16, 2022

After multiple delays, public hearings finally begin next week as part of the inquiry into the largest mass shooting in Canadian history. From 10 p.m. on April 18, 2020, well into the next day, a man disguised as a Mountie stalked across nearly 200 kilometres of rural Nova Scotia shooting neighbours, strangers, acquaintances and torching houses. He ultimately killed 22 people. One survivor of the rampage was Lisa Banfield, the killer’s common-law spouse, who — along with her brother and brother-in-law — has since been criminally charged with supplying the shooter with ammunition. Now, the brother-in-law’s lawyer says the charge against his client is “an effort to distract attention away from the incompetence of the RCMP.” Today, CBC Nova Scotia reporter Elizabeth McMillan is here to discuss those charges, which will soon be going to trial, and the looming inquiry, which some families are worried will continue to keep them in the dark.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hey everybody, Jamie here. As you've no doubt been hearing, there is just so much happening in Ottawa right now. On Monday, the Emergencies Act was invoked for the first time. On Tuesday, the Ottawa Police Chief Peter Slowly resigned after weeks of criticism over his handling of the protesters' occupation

around Parliament Hill. So we're actually in the capital right now, and we're going to be bringing you more coverage of what's happening from here in the coming days. But we've got another important story for you today about the massacre that began in Portapique, Nova Scotia, almost two years ago. Take a listen. After multiple delays, public hearings finally begin next week as part of the inquiry into the largest mass shooting in Canadian history. From 10pm on April 18, 2020, well into the next day, a man disguised as a Mountie stalked across nearly 200 kilometres of rural Nova Scotia, shooting neighbors, strangers, acquaintances, torching houses, ultimately killing 22 people. One survivor of the rampage was the killer's common-law spouse, who along with her brother and brother-in-law has since been charged criminally with supplying the shooter with ammunition.

Today, CBC Nova Scotia reporter Elizabeth McMillan is here to discuss those charges, which will soon be going to trial, and the looming inquiry, which some families are worried will continue to keep them in the dark. And a warning, this story contains details of violence and intimate partner violence. Hi, Elizabeth. Thank you so much for joining me. Good morning. Thanks for having me. So before we get into this story, I think it's important to establish that the common-law spouse of this killer, she has never once spoken publicly about what happened.

That's correct. And we've certainly tried to reach out to her first through her family and then through her lawyers, and they've declined to comment. The only information we have about her has come and her account has come from police and also from court documents and CBC and other media. We went to court to try to get search warrant documents in this case. And over the past nearly two years, we've gotten them and they've included summaries of statements she gave to police as well as statements that people close to her gave to police. So we do have some sense of what has happened to her, but we've never heard that firsthand perspective. Okay, so now let's go through what we do know. Can you take me back to the night of this massacre?

It was only after 6.30 in the morning or daybreak when a victim emerged from hiding after she had called 911. Our officers responded, and it was at that time that through that significant key witness, we confirmed more details about Gabriel Wardman. What do we know about what happened to this killer's common-law spouse the night her partner of nearly 20 years went on this rampage? Well, at first, all we knew was that she had been assaulted, restrained, and escaped. I can confirm that the individual is a

female and that female was in a relationship over a course of period of time with the gunman that female did escape and that female as i indicated had hid in the woods and that was the same individual that had key information for us that was necessary for us to understand more about Mr. Wortman and what he was currently in possession of at that time. Through those search warrant documents, we got a better picture. And that night, they were actually celebrating their 19th anniversary. It was at the beginning of the pandemic, and they were FaceTiming with friends. So the spouse, her name is Lisa Banfield, she talked to police about what happened and she described they were FaceTiming with friends and the subject of having a commitment ceremony came

up and that would be to celebrate their 20th anniversary the following year. And apparently one of the friends made this comment like, don't do it. And that prompted a bit of an argument because Lisa Banfield told police or she actually had a note on her phone where she talked about this person who made this comment. She had these suspicions that her partner, their gunman, had cheated on her with this woman. So this comment came up. She became upset. Then the gunman became angry at her, prompted an argument. They had been hanging out in this garage complex that they had. She went back to another property they had, their big log cabin cottage. She tried

to go to bed. He was still angry. She described later to police that he started beating her, dragged her out of bed. And this really horrible, violent assault occurred where she feared for her life. And she described that he grabbed guns and he doused their home, their cottage, in gasoline. And he lit it on fire and he torched it. And he dragged her away. And at one point he was shooting towards her. He hit the ground near her feet. She described having shoes ripped off her feet. He got a handcuff on one of her hands and she later told police that he put her in the back of that replica cruiser he used during the rampage.

And he went in back to their garage to, it seems, collect more weapons. And she said she managed to get through the glass divider between the front and back seats in that decommissioned patrol car. And she escaped. And she hid in the woods. So she told police she found kind of a an overturned tree and hid there for hours overnight and she was in hiding for for about eight hours and the next morning around dawn she went to a neighbor's home and he called police When she emerged from the woods, like what happened after that? RCMP, of course, were still in the area.

So they went and got her. They've said that, you know, she was cooperative and she's shared some critical information. We know some of that information included that the gunman had been in this fully marked cruiser. He was wearing a police uniform. And through her, they were able to get a photo of this vehicle. And even though other people earlier in the night had talked about this vehicle, I guess that was the first time they had a photo of it. And police described her as kind of this critical witness.

And according to the search warrants, she was concerned he was going to travel to Halifax and hurt more people. So we don't know exactly who she thought he was targeting, but we do know that they took her family members who live in the Halifax area into protective custody. So they were at the Halifax Regional Police's major crime unit that morning. major crime unit that morning. And so at first in the early days after these killings, the police were pretty clear about describing her as a victim too, right? Yeah, they were clear about describing her as experiencing this attack and managing to escape. And that, you know, they said that she was recovering, but that she was cooperative. And in those initial months, they spoke with her several times. And I actually did one interview with RCMP. It was one of the few times they spoke publicly extensively beyond the

handful of press conferences they did. And I asked Superintendent Darren Campbell about whether Lisa Banfield was a subject of their investigation. And what he said, he did use his words very carefully, but he said she is definitively a victim. What I can say definitively is that she's a victim. she's a victim. In one of those early press conferences, police said the assault on her could have been the catalyst that started the rampage. I don't want you to speculate, but is there the sense that this assault and the escape of his girlfriend was the trigger that set off this terrible series of events? So obviously, as part of the investigation that is a consideration that we have that could have been a catalyst to this however we're open to all possibilities. A few days later he he clarified that right? That was superintendent Darren Campbell and in a press conference he said

he didn't want to leave anyone with the impression that she might have caused this or been at fault in any way and that she was a victim of domestic violence. I want to be very clear that violence against women is intolerable. It's real. It exists. We also learn later, much later, through the search warrant documents when the redactions were lifted, that she spoke to a friend the day after the attacks, and she was concerned that perhaps the gunman had gone looking for her after she went in hiding. So she'd expressed concerns that that may have been part of the reason he went to their neighbors' homes that night, neighbors that he killed. But, you know, we don't know exactly why he did that. And certainly from the police perspective, they didn't want to leave the impression when they spoke in the press conference that she in any way caused these attacks. And I don't want to be misunderstood that the victim had any blame

in relation to what had occurred or transpired on those awful days. in relation to what had occurred or transpired on those awful days. I also just want to touch on this, that there were reports of her being abused long before the massacre. Yeah, and so a former neighbor in the weeks after the mass shootings, Brenda Forbes, she used to live in Portapique. She spoke out and she talked about how years earlier, I think it was seven years earlier, Lisa Banfield came to her home fleeing from her spouse, saying that he had beaten her, that he blocked her from leaving. So she was looking for help. When he drank, he got violent. And he had her totally under his control.

The first time that she ran over to my house, actually, and she said that he had been beating her, and he had blocked her car in so she couldn't get away at the house, and I said, you need to get help, and she said, said, no, I can't because he will hurt me again. And Brenda Forbes says that at the time she tried to report this to police. And there were three other people that were there and he had her on the ground. And he had her on the ground, one of the guys told me, was strangling her and screaming at her. And she actually said, don't get involved or you're only going to make it worse.

One of the guys told me what happened. So I said, that's it. And I called the RCMP. RCMP say, initially they said they couldn't find any record of this. And then they say, well, maybe there was officers who did take that call and their records were purged. In the search warrant documents, there's several people, some of whom seem to be Lisa Bannfield's family, who say that during the course of their relationship, he was abusive. who say that during the course of their relationship, he was abusive. She also described being fearful of him in her own statements to police that, you know, for instance, she didn't trust him with her nieces and she was worried that he might hurt her family. And she ended up filing a statement of claim against his estate.

In it, she alleged that she suffered physical, emotional, and psychological abuse. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to,

50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo, 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. So given everything we've talked about, this long history of violence against her and how police initially talked about her as a victim here, later, in December 2020, the police turn around and they charge her. They also charge her brother, James Banfield, and her brother-in-law, Brian Brewster, with providing this killer with the ammunition he used during the rampage. And what did the police say when they

laid these charges? What explanation did they give for them? From the outset, they were saying that, you know, they were launching this investigation to determine if the gunman had help, how he got illegal weapons, if anyone else was involved. So the charges were announced early December. And in the press release they sent out, they made clear that they did not believe this trio had any prior knowledge of what the gunman was planning. But they said basically they couldn't ignore the evidence they gathered. This is a charge that links them to the massacre of 22 people. Like, it lays some responsibility on them for this massacre. It just strikes me as

an extraordinary step for the police to take care. Well, certainly at the time when news of the charges came out, groups that advocate against intimate partner violence spoke out and were concerned that this sets a dangerous precedent and that charging a victim of violence, someone who was also a victim of the perpetrator might discourage other women from reporting their partners or ever going to police. And they talked about how within abusive relationships that someone is subjected to their partner's control. And so they raised a lot of concerns about that. And the other thing is, is that we still haven't seen any of the evidence that police gathered. So this hasn't been tested in court. The trials have been delayed. Lisa Banfield's trial is scheduled for the end of March.

Her older brother has pleaded guilty initially. All three pleaded not guilty. And her brother-in-law is going to trial in June, and that's set to continue into the fall. I understand that Lisa and her brother and her brother-in-law, they were also named in the civil case filed by the families of the victims. And what does that case allege? So, yes, it's against the gunman's estate, which is valued at $2.1 million. And they were added as defendants after the charges were laid. And it alleges that they're liable to the families and the people who were injured,

people who lost loved ones. And it goes a little bit further the the statement of claim than the criminal charges because it alleges that lisa banfield has some responsibility because of prior knowledge that she had of the gunman's preparations so that included kind of the acquisition and not only of the firearms the ammunition as well as the gasoline that he ended up using when he torched homes and vehicles, the police paraphernalia that he that he wore. And the RCMP vehicle that he spent months outfitting. And those court documents allege that she directly acquired some of the accelerants used as well as the ammunition. And in that case, there's been no statements of defense filed. So we don't know what her perspective is on that.

And it hasn't yet been certified as a class action. So it's still in those initial stages of a lawsuit. All right. So despite these extraordinary charges and this civil suit, Lisa Banfield's silence, even her lawyer's silence, it continues. But I know that you did manage to speak with the lawyer representing her brother-in-law who has pled not guilty. And what did he tell you about these charges that have been pressed against his client? that have been pressed against his client. So the lawyer, he's based in Halifax, Tom Singleton, said that his client, Brian Brewster, when he initially spoke to police, was just trying to help. It was the day of the rampage ended. He talked to police initially at his kitchen table,

and then they called him up a few months later and asked to speak with him again. And so his lawyer says that, you know, his client was not aware he was under investigation until the end of that second interview. And he is taking issue with the police tactics, saying that his client was basically tricked into giving a police statement because unbeknownst to Brian Brewster, into giving a police statement because unbeknownst to Brian Brewster, at that point, police had already sought authorization to get his bank records. And when they came to interview him that second time, they had a search warrant for his phone. So his lawyer, he alleges that his client's charter rights were violated because he wasn't

explicitly told he could consult with a lawyer. And he says his client just believed he was helping. Now, Crown in this case says, well, he knew police were investigating the weapons and the ammunition, and he was never under arrest or detained, which under Canadian law, that's what would prompt the obligation to tell him he could consult a lawyer. The brother-in-law's lawyer, he also says that he finds these charges and the way that the RCMP and the Crown are pursuing them unusual, right? Can you tell me more about that? Yeah. I mean, he says in his 30-year career, he's prosecuted lots of transferring of ammunition charges. And what it relates to basically is the allegation that they transferred ammunition

to someone who wasn't authorized to have a firearm. And he says, you know, it's a relatively minor offense. And the Crown is proceeding summarily. The first and most someone is facing is probably a fine of a couple of thousand dollars or possibly a period of probation and this is the first time ever I've seen a summary conviction matter being prosecuted by not one but two senior crown senior Crown attorneys, it's so unusual that none of my colleagues in criminal defense law have ever seen this before. And he says kind of by virtue of being linked to this massacre, he thinks that it was kind of the RCMP's way to detract from a lot of the negative publicity that came after the mass

shooting, where people questioned what the RCMP knew, what they failed to do. And since these are the only charges filed, the lawyer, he says, This is nothing more than an effort to distract attention away from the incompetence of the RCMP. I think the RCMP just loved the idea of having a scapegoat that they can deflect attention to away from themselves. This idea of RCMP incompetence, obviously it's not just being tossed out by this lawyer. This has been a major concern of the families of the victims. It's part of why we're getting these public hearings that are set to start next week. Yeah, it's, you know, since the very first morning, like I was working that morning when we were getting information on Twitter and immediately people were questioning, like, why is this information going out on Twitter?

Where is the emergency alert? What's going on? And there was this massive public outrage immediately. And then families started speaking out, too, not only about the information they had and that the RCMP was communicating limited information. He was communicating limited information. And we know now they were quite delayed in sharing information, for instance, about that replica cruiser. But also people questioned, you know, did they do enough to stop him? Because he was ultimately killed about 13 hours after the first 911 call. And by that point, he had traveled nearly 200 kilometers through rural Nova Scotia in several different communities.

So there's been so many questions about how that was able to happen and, you know, what role RCMP played and what they knew. And in the weeks afterwards, you know, the calls for the public inquiry grew not just from family members or people in those affected areas, but from across the country. And then, of course, ultimately that led to the inquiry. And now that it's finally set to begin, I understand you've spoken to at least one relative who's already losing faith in the process. Yeah, I spoke with Darcy Dobson last week. Her mother, Heather O'Brien, was a nurse. And that Sunday morning, she was on her way to visit her grandchildren and deliver her kids coffee. And she was on the phone

with a friend and she said, oh, the Mounties are here. And at that point, no one knew the suspect was in a replica cruiser. And that was the last time anyone heard from her so she was killed by the gunman who was a stranger on the side of the road and her family has been adamant that had they known a little bit more about the risk and had they known that the suspect was on the move that she would not have been on the road and her daughter daughter, Darcy Dobson, was one of the people who advocated for a public inquiry. I lost my mom and I have a shell of the man that was my father since that day because he's not able to heal, given what has happened and that there is no answers for what happened. She led a march to the RCMP station, the closest one to Portapique

in the summer of 2020, about 300 people. And it was this really quiet march and family members held signs and called for accountability and transparency. And she was one of the spokespeople that day for that group. And she contacted me last week because she's become really frustrated. And she started to regret her role advocating for the inquiry because she says she's not happy with the way her family's been treated by the Mass Casualty Commission that's overseeing it. She feels that they've been kept in the dark and that they still don't have crucial details that they've been kept in the dark and that they still don't have crucial details that they need to prepare. If I knew what I know today,

I probably never would have marched the streets for the inquiry because this is a mess. And that's the nicest way I can put it. I think the why and the how is still a very important thing. Um, but the way that we've been treated and trying to get the, to get the answers to the why and the how, um,

as outlined in the mandate of the mass casualty commission is absurd. I am mentally exhausted at this point. because i don't know what else to do she doesn't know if she's going to be able to testify and she says part of the reason she wanted an inquiry was to share her mother's story to prevent that type of situation from ever happening again and she says the commission staff have given her no clear answers on whether she will be called as a witness or who else might be called as witnesses. She wants that her counsel, the counsel for the families, to be able to question any witnesses. So she says that type of information hasn't been shared.

And she feels that the transparency that she wanted, that isn't happening. And it's left her really demoralized. At the end of the day, the only thing anybody is looking for is accountability for somebody to say, hey, we made some mistakes. So this never happens again. You know, Elizabeth, I feel like this story just keeps leaving me with so many more questions and answers. I hope for the family's sake that we will learn more soon. This must just be so terrible to go through. And I hope they get answers not just at the inquiry,

but also at the trials of Lisa Banfield and her brother-in-law, which, as you mentioned, are set to begin soon because they're both pleading not guilty. I wonder, might we learn anything new from those trials as well about the police response here? Well, we'll certainly get more insight into the evidence police gathered against the people who are accused, and it'll be the first opportunity to get Lisa Banfield's perspective on those charges. You know, her lawyer said he's not able to comment on anything until the trial is finished. The other thing is that with the public inquiry starting, we don't know

to what extent Lisa Banfield will be involved because she's considered a participant. So just like the family members are participants, over the past few months, the commission has been sharing some information about their investigation with her and through her counsel, and her lawyers are able to give feedback. But we have no idea if she, for instance, would be one of those witnesses, even though she has this firsthand, fairly unique perspective on the gunman and what happened that night. So there's still many questions about not only what we may learn, but how we may learn it and a lot of uncertainty about what the next few months will bring. Okay, Elizabeth, thank you. You're welcome. So before we go today, an update on a story that we've talked about on the show before. On Tuesday, Prince Andrew, son of Queen Elizabeth, reached a settlement in principle in the sexual abuse lawsuit with Virginia Giuffre.

Ms. Giuffre had accused Andrew of raping her when she was a teenager after the two were introduced by Jeffrey Epstein. Court documents show Andrew intends to make a substantial donation to jufre's charity in support of victims rights and also demonstrate his regret for his association with epstein by supporting the fight against the evils of sex trafficking and by supporting his victims the exact sum of the settlement has not been disclosed that's all for for now. I'm Jamie Poisson. We'll talk to you tomorrow. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.