End of Public Inquiry - Mysterious Death of Neil Stonechild

[Guest]

Neil Stonechild Inquiry Web Site
http://www.stonechildinquiry.ca

- - - - - - -

UPDATED
December 18, 2008 . . .

Neil Stonechild inquiry - Supreme Court says NO to Saskatoon cops . . .
No charges were ever laid, but certainly the Saskatoon Police were viewed with a black cloud over them - there is big time suspicion about police activity related to Neil Stonechild's death.

Two cops were fingered in an Inquiry, but have fought from court to court. But they have lost another appeal - this one in the Supreme Court of Canada.
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =9908#9908
- - -

June 19, 2008
Stonechild Inquiry report upheld by Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
Cops lose their legal challenge . . .
http://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/judgments/2 ... 8skca81.pd
- - - - - - -

November 2, 2006
Saskatoon Cops who had Neil Stonechild in custody prior to his death, lose appeal to get their jobs back. . .
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =7669#7669

- - - - - - -

October 26, 2004

Saskatchewan Justice Minister releases the final report of the Stonechild Inquiry. . .
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =4291#4291
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

End of Public Inquiry Into the Mysterious Death of Neil Stonechild

Final submissions . . .

May 18-19, 2004

http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =3000#3000

---------------------------------------

March 7, 2004

Two suspect police officers among the final witnesses . . .

http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =2399#2399

---------------------------------------

January 9, 2004

Deputy Police Chief joins growing list of those highly critical of 1990 investigation into the death of Neil Stonechild
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =1984#1984

------------------------------------

January 8, 2004

Shoddy police investigation of Neil Stonechild death either negligent or a police cover-up, says Mountie
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =1985#1985

------------------------------------
January 7, 2004

Phones of suspect police officer tapped when Neil Stonechild's death was investigated ten years later
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =1975#1975

------------------------------------

Alcohol-induced Amnesia, Blacking Out and Filling in the Blanks . . .

Saskatoon Police Service Lawyer Works Hard to Challenge the Credibility of Neil Stonechild's Friend Jason Roy

http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =1973#1973

------------------------------------

January 6, 2004
Professor's testimony raises question at the Stonechild inquiry

Was Neil's friend Jason Roy too drunk in 1990 to have real memories today?

http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =1971#1971

------------------------------------
January 1, 2004
Public Hearings Resume in Saskatoon

Witnesses Include Former Mayor, Police and a man considered to be a suspect in Investigation of Neil Stonechild's Death

http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =1946#1946

------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/special ... index.html
------------------------------------

November 25, 2003

Perhaps 20 to 30 hours, and maybe not even that much, is the amount of time spent by the lead investigator probing the mysterious death of Neil Stonechild in 1990.

Retired Saskatoon police sergeant Keith Jarvis agreed with that assessment during questioning by a lawyer representing Neil Stonechild's family, at the public inquiry into his death.

"QUESTION Okay. We're talking about two-and-a-half working days, maximum, that you were attending to the file and maybe 20 hours, maybe not 20 hours? ANSWER Yes."

Jarvis also testified he ended the investigation because he concluded there were no obvious signs of foul play, " . . . in regards to the medical evidence that was supplied from the coroner, from the pathologist and everyone else that attended, there was no signs of violence to the deceased to indicate that he'd been beaten up, if that's what you're referring to . . . I requested the file to be concluded, sir, based on the information that I had at the time. . . That's why the file was requested to be concluded at that time, there was nothing to support anything of foul play . . ."

November 25, 2003

The public inquiry in Saskatoon has heard more testimony from Keith Jarvis, the original investigator of Neil Stonechild's myesterious death thirteen years ago.

The inquiry resumed after a one month break, and Jarvis testified that uncooperative family and friends of Neil Stonechild left him with no choice but to end the investigation. He said they mentioned rumours about someone who might have been responsible for Neil's death, but they refused to provide further information.

" . . . it was members of Mr. Stonechild's family that did attend at the police station. Allegations were made at the time that they had received information that the Ps were, in fact, responsible for beating up Mr. Stonechild and transporting him up to the north end of the city and dropping him off. At that time I asked if they could provide me -- or where would this information have come from. I was informed that it was from a friend of a friend . . . I requested if they could give me the name of the friend of a friend in order that I could follow it up and they either did not know or could not give me or would not give me the information. I then requested, well, have that individual or friend of a friend contact me or come in and see me at the police station so that I can interview them and take a report from them. That never transpired."

Jarvis had previously stated Neil Stonechild was seen in the back of a police cruiser the night he disappeared. But now, during cross examination, the former Saskatoon policeman says he was mistaken and he only said that because the Mounties who questioned him had suggested that to him and he had become confused.

" QUESTION -Now during this period of time did either of Officers Lyons or Warner or anyone else from the RCMP relate to you that they had received information where someone was claiming Mr. Stonechild was seen in a police cruiser shortly before or when he was, you know, first noticed missing? ANSWER -That may have been suggested to me, sir, in an effort to refresh my memory. QUESTION -Okay. Can you recall precisely? ANSWER -No, I can't, sir. QUESTION -Did you, yourself, have any recollection of anyone -- now I'm talking back in 1990 or any time before the RCMP contacting you in 2000 -- anyone suggesting that was the case? ANSWER -No, sir."

----------------------------------

October 10, 2003

Aboriginal member of Saskatoon police force, highly critical of investigation into death of Neil Stonechild

http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... php?p=1633

----------------------------------

October 8, 2003

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas - Bob Kennedy
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

Second Phase of Commission of Inquiry Into Neil Stonechild's Death

The Police Investigation

Crime Stopper's Tip - Information From an Informant - But No-Follow-up!

http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... php?p=1626

-----------------------------------

Various media reports are available at

http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&editio ... earch+News

----------------------------------

More news reports

www.canada.com/saskatoon/specials/stonechild/

-----------------------------------

INQUIRY INTO MATTERS RELATING TO THE DEATH OF NEIL STONECHILD
http://www.turtleisland.org/news/news-stonechild.htm

"The inquiry will have the responsibility to inquire into any and all aspects of the circumstances that resulted in the death of Neil Stonechild, and the conduct of the investigation into the death of Neil Stonechild. "
. . . the terms of reference.
----------------------------------


September 22, 2003

Neil Stonechild's older sister Erica, testified about what she saw when she viewed his lifeless, wounded body, prior to his funeral

http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =1551#1551

----------------------------------
Testimony from Saskatoon police officer Kevin Lewis, social worker Diana Fraser, Erica Stonechild - Neil's sister, and a former policeman - Rene Lagimodiere who was the first officer on the scene when Neil's body was discovered by workemen in 1990.

http://www.cvreporting.com/STONECHILD-9.pdf

----------------------------------

Family and friends of Neil Stonechild bravely testify at Public Inquiry

"Jason saw Neil, his friend, in the backseat of the car, and Neil was bloodied up. His face was full of blood. "

September 20, 2003

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas - Bob Kennedy
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

Cree teenager Neil Stonechild's death, under questionable circumstances ten years ago on the outskirts of Saskatoon, is being put under a microscope at a public inquiry. So is Neil's character, the behaviour of Aboriginal youths, and the Saskatoon police.

" . . . that evening we were having tea in the kitchen, my sister and I, and he came and he said Mom, he said, I'm leaving out for a while, to the -- go see my friends. And it had been snowing, I know that night was stormy. And I told him, Harry, I said, which was his nickname, Harry, I said, you have to be careful, I said, it's stormy. Please stay inside, I told him, don't go nowhere. And he turned and he come and hugged me and said I'm going to be fine, Mom, I'll see you later. And he said I can't phone you because there's no phone there. So he come and kissed me and he left."

That was November 24th, 1990, the last time Neil Stonechild's mother saw him alive.

At the inquiry, she was asked by Commission Counsel, about the next time she saw him, at the funeral home, " . . . was there anything unusual you noted about the body? A - Yes, as soon as I saw him, there was a gash across his face, from his nose to his cheek, across his face, like across the nose to the cheek. And it wasn't just a scratch either, because it was, it was open, more open than just a scratch."

THE PARTY THE NIGHT BEFORE NEIL DISAPPEARED

On Friday, September 18th, 2003, Flora Binning who was 18 in 1990 when Neil Stonechild died, testified that people, including Neil who was 17, had gathered at her mother's house where she lived, and they were drinking, on the night before he went missing.

She knew Neil, and her boyfriend Eddie Rushton knew him well, "Neil hung out with my boyfriend, Eddie, also with my sister, Jason and Cheryl, and a bunch of other people. I couldn't tell you how long I knew him. I'm guessing probably maybe about four years."

UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL BUT COHERENT

Flora recalled the last time she saw Neil Stonechild, he was heading out her front door to go to the store because, "People wanted munchies". He never returned. She heard the next day that his mother was looking for him and that he was missing.

When asked about the drinking and the shape Neil was in that night, she told the inquiry, " . . . he wasn't falling down drunk. He wasn't like -- like I've worked in a bar and there is like tipsy, there's drunk and there's just out of your head. Basically he was in between tipsy and being completely -- well, not completely intoxicated but he was, you know, you can carry a conversation with him, he knew what he was doing."

Pressed by police lawyers about the nature of the get togethers by Neil, Jason Roy and others - "What you're telling us, though, is the drinking style of Jason, Neil and the rest of the gang was drink until you get drunk. Pretty much, yeah. "

Neil's mother was the first witness when the Inquiry began, and among the first questions she was asked, - did her son have run-ins with the law, and did he have a problem with drinking. She responded, yes to both questions. She also pointed out Neil had been to treatment, and attended AA meetings.

Maybe I am wrong, but in my opinion, it doesn't seem they are appropriate first questions to ask.

BLAME MENTALITY

This line of questioning is very familiar to me, having reported on the inquest into the death of Anthany Dawson, in Victoria, British Columbia after he died in police custody under questionable circumstances. I remember that his mother and aunt and members of the Aboriginal community were outraged by the way police lawyers tried to taint the proceedings with character assasination of Anthany as a drunken or drug-crazed Indian. It's a curious charatceristic of the justice system that allows the latitude to lay blame at the feet of the victim . . . you know what I mean, the strategy of the he-deserved-it mentality.

During their questioning of witnesses at the Saskatoon inquiry, lawyers for the police have raised various issues to draw attention to Neil Stonechild's character. The history of he and his friends doing B and E's (Break and Enters) to get money to buy booze.


RUMOURS vs. REALITY

For example, Drew Plaxton, representing the police union, asking about " something about Neil being involved in trying to sell some stolen guns". There were many words about the violence involving Aboriginal teens in Saskatoon.

Is this to suggest Neil's death has more to do with lifestyle, community and peer conflicts, or illegal activities, than the authorities?

We should expect to see a lot more of this line of questioning, not only to discredit the witnesses, but also the life of Neil Stonechild.

CREDIBLE KEY WITNESS - AFRAID OF SASKATOON POLICE SINCE 1990

The inquiry will hear from more than 60 witnesses. His friend Jason Roy, already raised concerns about Neil Stonechild being apprehended by police before his death . . . the look on his face - fear and protestations.

"He had fresh blood on his face across his nose. I couldn't see all that well, but he had his face to the window and he was yelling at me, asking me to help him."

The friend, seen as a key witness in their investigation, was placed in the witness protection program by the RCMP, only to be tracked down by Saskatoon police.

Here's some of the Q. and A. from the inquiry.

"The officer stopped me and asked me who I was. At the time I was unlawfully at large from a community home and I gave a fake name. I gave a false name.
Q Do you recall what name you gave them? A Tracy Lee Horse.
Q And why did you give them that name? A He was somebody that I grew up with and I knew his birthday. Q And what was your concern in giving them your real name? A For one I didn't want to be in that car, and for two, I didn't want to go back to jail. Q Okay. Now what happened, you've given the name, do you recall anything else? A Asked me who I was and he punched it into his computer, the name that I had given him, he punched it into the computer and it took a little while for it to happen. So I kind of took maybe half a step back to just wait for this process to go through. And Neil was freaking out in the back car, back seat of the car. And the officer driving asked me, "Do you know this guy in the back?" I said, no, I didn't know him because I didn't want to -- I didn't want to be there in that car with him. The name that I gave came back as not having any warrants or anything like that in order for them to pick me up. I asked, "Can I go now?" And they let me go. Q And what happened? Where did you go from there? A The car pulled out in front of me and started heading down Confederation Drive. Q Which direction did the car go? A It was heading south. Q On Confederation Drive?A And Neil was looking out the back of the window, just staring at me. He looked -- he just looked scared. He -- he just looked really really scared, and my thoughts at the time were, "Well, he's just going to go back to Kilburn Hall, that will be it. I'll see him when he gets out."

Father Andre Poilievre knew Jason Roy when he was in high school, knew his family, and then encountered him when he was a chaplain and Jason an inmate at the Saskatoon Correctional Centre. He has known Jason Roy for about 15 years. Jason has participated in dozens of presentations with him at schools and treatment centres, part of the Pikohewin healing program, in which Jason shared his stories about addictions.

On Thursday, September 17, 2003 Father Poilievre was a witness at the Stonechild Inquiry and testified about Jason coming to speak to him at the corectional centre in 1996 or 1997, " And he shares with me this incredible story, unbelievable story in a sense, about the fact that one night, and he didn't give me the dates of whatever, that he had been out partying with a young friend, Neil Stonechild, and they'd been drinking. And Neil wanted to go look up an old girlfriend, and he had told me where. I know the apartment buildings. And they tried a few buildings and it wasn't working out, and so Jason said, "Well, I'm going back," wherever the party was, I guess. "I'm just going back." And so they split, and Neil kept on doing what Neil was doing; trying to get into the building somehow.

And on his way back, he, Jason was stopped by a police cruiser, and Jason saw Neil, his friend, in the backseat of the car, and Neil was bloodied up. His face was full of blood. And Jason told me that Neil was in handcuffs. And Jason told me that the police officers asked him who he was and that he had given him a false name. And then the police let him go. Then Neil was found dead a couple days later.

That's pretty well all he told me. We didn't go into details and I didn't pursue the -- I didn't go into details. That wasn't what this was all about. I was just -- he was sharing me a story, and -- but I do remember that he
shared with me the fact that, he says, "You know, Andre, I can't -- I can't sleep. I'm having a hard time sleeping. I've -- this is eating me up. This is chewing me up. This is -- I just have lots of regrets."

And that's the issue that he wanted to talk to me about. He wanted to talk to me about what was going on. He's an inmate; he's in jail. He's locked up. He's got all this time to think. And this thing is just chewing at him. So he had that guilt. It was a question of guilt, it was a question of shame, it was a question of regret. It was a question of the fact that he abandoned his little friend. Those were the struggles that he was -- wanted to share with me and was crying out for some help, some assistance.

We talked about the fact that he was afraid of the police. I remember that also very clearly, but that was secondary to that other stuff that he wanted to deal with."

DOUBTS AND EXPECTATIONS

While lawyers representing police interests predictably cross examine witnesses aggressively, attempting to challenge, perhaps discredit their words and contentions, Neil's mother Stella Stonechild-Bignell, relatives, a former girlfriend, and a close friend have bravely testified, and their horror and suspicions about foul play were quite evident . . . not only were they horrified by Neil's freezing death, but about bruises or wounds on his face and body.

Jason Roy testified about the last time he saw his friend Neil, " I started walking back down Confederation Drive and I got maybe about two blocks from 7-11 on Confederation Drive and there's an alley approach going on to Confederation Drive right there. And as I approached that alley, a police car pulled in front of me and Neil was in the back. Neil went
to -- he saw me, he was -- he was very irate. He was freaking out. He was saying, "Jay, help me. Help me. These guys are going to kill me."

Walking with the witnesses into the inquiry are the many experiences, and perhaps the spirits, of other Aboriginals who have encountered "the system" . . . to them a foreign system, of so-called justice.

BALANCE

As the Commission of Inquiry moves ahead, I believe that more balance will be seen, as lawyers for the family and First Nations look into the behaviour of the police, and the manner in which the 1990 police investigation was conducted.

Neil's body was found in the north industrial area of Saskatoon in November 1990. The RCMP investigation was the longest of the investigations involving Aboriginal men and allegations of police wrongdoing in Saskatoon.

As part of the Mounties probe, Mr. Stonechild's body was exhumed in late April 2001.

The head office of Saskatchewan's Public Prosecutions Division reviewed the RCMP investigation and determined there was insufficient evidence to lay charges.

WHAT'S IT GOT TO DO WITH JUSTICE?

Although the government's purpose of this public inquiry, ordered in February by the Justice Minister of Saskatchewan, is not to determine criminal or civil responsibility, it does include, " the nature and extent of contact between Mr. Stonechild and members of the Saskatoon Police Service".

So after all is said at the public inquiry, will there be justice for Neil Stonechild, his family, friends and Aboriginal Peoples generally?

Considering past experiences, it's very difficult to remain optimistic.

However, there remains some hope in the fact, this is a formal Commission of Inquiry that must make public its findings, conclusions and recommendations, with respect to the administration of criminal justice in the province of Saskatchewan.

As well, there is hope things will change in Saskatchewan, because of the real efforts being made by First Nations and the province through the Commission on First Nations and Metis Peoples and Justice Reform

ABORIGINAL HOPE FOR JUSTICE, SPRINGS ETERNAL

In its Interim Report released earlier this year, the Justice Reform Commission called on the Saskatchewan government to adopt a recommendation made 11 years ago by another aboriginal justice committee asking for a citizen's complaint review mechanism.

It also recommended the government provide funding for the special investigation unit of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, formed two years ago, in response to reports of abusive treatment of Aboriginals by the police, including the dumping of Aboriginal men into the freezing cold on the outskirts of Saskatoon.


WHAT THE SYSTEM PROMISES

As for Neil Stonechild's public inquiry, it promises much, as you can see from Commission Counsel Joel Hesje.

As for justice? We will have to wait together, to see what it delivers.

"We will begin with the events of November 24th. 1990. We will hear testimony from persons having contact with Neil Stonechild on that date. We will also present police records indicating possible contact between Saskatoon Police Service and Neil Stonechild in the late hours of November 24th, 1990. We will also hear from various witnesses that received information as to the events of November 24th, 1990. We will then present evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the discovery of Neil Stonechild's frozen body on November 29th, 1990. This will include testimony from the attending officers, the coroner, and the pathologist.

The focus of the evidence will then shift to the Saskatoon Police Service
investigation of the death. We will hear from the investigating officers and the chain of command within the Saskatoon Police Service at the time -- many of whom are now retired. We intend to present all available evidence as to the conduct of the Saskatoon Police Service investigation, including the extent of such investigation. We will also call the two Saskatoon Police Service officers who were dispatched in response to a complaint involving Neil Stonechild on November 24th, 1990.

We intend to present evidence as to how the death of Neil Stonechild became the subject of an RCMP investigation in 2000. Evidence that came to light as a result of that investigation will be presented in as much detail
as possible.

In an attempt to cover all matters of potential public concern relating to the circumstances surrounding the death of Neil Stonechild we shall call evidence as to the information received or uncovered by the Saskatoon Police Service since 1990. This will include evidence as to the Saskatoon Police Service's response to such information and to public concerns raised with respect to this matter.

Throughout the hearing there will be evidence as to the policies, procedures, and practices of the Saskatoon Police Service that may have impacted on the Stonechild investigation.

There will also be evidence of changes in such policies, procedures and practices over the years."

----------------------------------

NOTE FROM THE EDITOR:

If you do not want to rely on media reports or rumours, then you can read the

Transcripts of Testimony at the Neil Stonechild Inquiry

http://www.cvreporting.com/StonechildTranscripts.htm

----------------------------------

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... .php?t=417

-----------------------------------


CBC's In-Depth report on Neil Stonechild and the Cree teenager's suspicious death

http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/backgrou ... child.html

-----------------------------------

Commission on First Nations and Metis Peoples and Justice Reform in Saskatchewan

http://www.justicereformcomm.sk.ca

------------------------------------

Read about other inquiries and various reports that address the justice issues facing First Nations and Aboriginal Peoples

Visit Turtle Island Native Network's Justice Section

http://www.turtleisland.org/news/news-justice.htm

------------------------------------

[admin]

Testimony at the Public Inquiry in Saskatoon, September 22, 2003

Neil's Stonechild's Older Sister Recalled Seeing His Wounded, Lifeless Body


I was there with a few cousins and I was there with my aunt and my uncle, that would be Gerry and Deborah Mason. was there with them and a couple of the younger cousins and stuff, and my mom hadn't been down yet. So we went a little bit earlier and discussing -- like I had a discussion with my aunt as well, whether she -- "Do you think we should have an open or shut casket?" And this and that, and I just told her, "No, I don't think so. Like I don't think we should have a closed casket, because then nobody sees what he looks like," you know.

And he had a lot of bruising on his face. he had cuts across his nose. I remember the big one. He had a really big gash across his nose. And I can even -- I can remember feeling so much like this is not him. Like he was so unrecogniz- able that he -- I had to confirm in my own way that it was him. I didn't want to believe it.

And so I thought, "Well what are the only ways that I'm going to do it?" Well my brother had a tattoo on his hand and it had his initials on there. And I looked at his hand to see if he had initials, you know, his name initials, and, yeah, they were there. I -- you know, I seen the tattoo and I said, "Yeah, it is," you know, "It's him. Can't believe it." And --

Q Did you make any other observations of his right hand?

A No, I did not. I just remember wanting to confirm myself that that was him, because we didn't go down to the coroner's to identify the body or nothing. But in my state of mind I just felt like, you know, I want to know for certain this is him, because it didn't look like him.

And at that point then I started -- like, you know, of course you have your grieving process. you're so in shock you don't think nothing. You're looking at him and you're, you know, studying him and holding him and I thought, well, gee, you know, if he's got all these cuts on him, I said, you know, what else is there?

And so I started feeling through his hair -- like I started just feeling all over his head. And I was running my fingers through his hair and he had like numerous bumps on his head. He had a prominent cut on his head that was like -- it was a ridge that I felt on his head and parted his hair to see.

That's when I called over my Aunt Debbie and I said, you know, "Come here, look at this." If -- you know, because she asked me, "Is this" -- you know, she said, "Gypsy, is this from freezing? Can people happen" -- "Can this stuff happen with freezing?" And I'm not an expert or nothing, but to my knowledge it doesn't happen. To my knowledge, even then, it doesn't happen. You don't feel numerous bumps and cuts on someone's body that has frozen. I don't care if it's for a week or a year, as far as I'm
concerned.

Q Did you ever receive any explanation as to the -- particularly with regards to the bumps on the head?

A No. I waited -- actually, after the funeral I -- we waited for an autopsy report, I believe. At some point my mother and I read the autopsy report. It said that there was no indication of foul play. There was no marks written on the original report that I remember. It said no foul play, he was -- died of exposure, he had a blood alcohol level of da, da, da, and that was it.

(NOTE FROM THE EDITOR: During her testimony Erica Stonechild pointed out that the Saskatoon Police never interviewed her about her brother's death after his body was found. She thought that wasn't right at all. )

http://www.cvreporting.com/STONECHILD-9.pdf

[admin]

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas - Bob Kennedy
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

January 1, 2004

A former Mayor and head of the Saskatoon Police Commission, and a man considered to be a suspect in the investigation of the 1990 death of an Aboriginal man, will be among the witnesses when the Public Inquiry into the suspicious death of Neil Stonechild, resumes next week in Saskatoon.

The public hearings resume next Monday, January 5th at 9:30 a.m. at the Top of the Inn, Sheraton Cavalier Hotel, Saskatoon.

Among the witnesses scheduled to testify is Gary Pratt.

During the hearings there have been allegations about Pratt and questions raised about him and his involvement in Neil Stonechild's demise. Commissioner, Mr. Justice David H. Wright recently granted him full standing as a witness and also ruled that Pratt has the right to receive funding - $192.00 an hour for his legal counsel.

Mr. Justice Wright said in his ruling, " I grant full standing to Mr. Pratt. I do so in recognition of the allegations against Mr. Pratt, which have been referred to repeatedly in the hearings. There is also some indication that he has been considered a suspect in the investigation of Mr. Stonechild’s death. As such he is directly and substantially affected by the Inquiry."

One of the witnesses scheduled to appear when the public hearings resume next week is Jim Maddin, a former Saskatoon police investigator, and former Saskatoon Mayor. He began testifying at the end of November, prior to when the hearings adjourned.

Although he wasn't directly involved in the Stonechild investigation, he testified about the rumour mill and that he had heard stories within the department about two police officers being connected with the case, "and what the connect was I have no detail, whether they had been involved, whether they had been -- had something to do with the investigation or whatever."

The Commission legal counsel asked Maddin, "Were there any names attached to those officers?" Maddin answered, " Two -- two officers names, Larry Hartwig and Brad Senger, yes." Maddin told the inquiry he heard the stories, sometime between Neil Stonechild's body being discovered in 1990, and when Maddin retired from the police force in 1997.

He clarified, " I never became aware of any specific involvement that Senger and Hartwig may have had with the case, not at all, just a connect between the case and the two names."

However, a transcript of a June 2003 interview Maddin did with the CBC was brought into evidence at the inquiry and it quoted Maddin as saying, "With respect to the Neil Stonechild file, there was certainly concerns raised in and around the police service after the event. I can't pin down exactly when, but I know that it did become knowledge to most of the members that gee, there may have been some involvement by a couple of members of the police service with Mr. Stonechild at about the time of his demise."

The Commission's lawyer asked Maddin if that was an accurate transcription of what he said. Maddin replied, " Yeah, I would say so, yes."

During questioning at the hearings November 29th, Maddin confirmed that in an interview with RCMP investigators, he also mentioned the rumours and stories about possible police involvement with Neil Sonechild. But did he do anything about it? Did he follow-up on it or discuss it with senior officials in the police department? He said, no. And why not?

"Because the information was not presented to me as new information being disclosed to me, it was not anybody reporting information to me, it was, as I say, rumour and talk in and around the police building. It seemed to me -- it occurred to me that it was virtually common knowledge, and I didn't take any action on it. I assumed that action had already been taken on it if, in fact, there was anything to it."

During cross examination of Maddin, a lawyer representing Hartwig asked if he had reviewed the Stonechild police files and was he aware that Senger and hartwick had been dispatched to a complaint scene that Neil Stonechild was drunk and disorderly. But Maddin was unaware of the two officers responding to the call and that when they got to the scene Neil was not there.

The point is that the two officers may have simply been associated with Neil Stonechild because they responded to a complaint about him. The police lawyers are making the case, that while there were rumours and stories about some sort of police involvement, there's no proof of any wrongdoing. They also made the point that Maddin, after losing an election to become Mayor again, he was telling reporters and the RCMP about concerns within the Saskatoon police department when in fact he had no proof there were concerns, because all he had was recollections of rumours and stories, without details and without sources.

The question was also raised, why Maddin when he was Mayor did not raise any concerns about Neil Stonechild, the investigation and the so-called concerns. He couldn't really say why he had not raised the same concerns.

Also, in their discrediting Maddin, police lawyers drew out of him the fact that he had himself screwed up a major investigation and contained information and had to be forced to hand over information to the police after he had left, and that he was containing the information to protect himself.

Other witnesses scheduled to appear at the public hearings are, Larry Flysak, Dr. Steven Richardson, Deputy Chief Dan Wiks, Chief Superintendent Darrel McFadyen, and Staff Sergeant Murray Zoorkan.

17 year old Neil Stonechild was found frozen to death in a field outside Saskatoon, December 29, 1990.

[infocom@pro.net]

Stonechild Inquiry

Was Neil's Friend Too Drunk in 1990 to Have Real Memories Today?

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas - Bob Kennedy
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

January 6, 2004

Jason Roy may have been so drunk he could not accurately recall what happened the last time he saw his close friend.

That according to an expert on the effects of alcohol on memory, called as a witness, to testify at the public inquiry into the suspicious death of Neil Stonechild, who Roy said he saw in the back seat of a police cruiser, shouting for help because he feared for his life.

John Richardson, a professor with the Department of Pharmacology, the College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan testified about issues related to blood alcohol content and issues of impact of blood alcohol on physical and neurological functions. " . . .in alcohol-induced amnesia the filling in of something that must have happened that then gives closure to that person's memory processes, these would be the equivalent of false memories. They're not -- the person is not lying, they're not having -- it's just what they think, what they have come up with to cause the closure or to bring about closure, it just does not -- it wasn't what happened at the time. So this would be a false memory. It's not necessarily a lie, it's not a created kind of thing it's just -- or consciously created, it's just something that the person's mind has done to bring about closure."

Although the inquiry's Commissioner allowed the professor to testify as an expert witness, Jason Roy's lawyer protested, "I'm afraid Doctor Richardson's qualifications in the area of alcohol relate mostly to rats and not to human beings, and I think that that's a terrible drawback since we're dealing with human beings here today. And I would offer that I don't think that he has the expertise that we require for these proceedings. He indicates that he would be able to apply a formula to what may well be imprecise data and -- which would lead to imprecise outcomes, no doubt. That being the case, I would just offer that his testimony as unnecessary and that the expertise that he can offer, the application or formula, is something that we can find on the Internet. And I would just say that -- with respect to the doctor, that his testimony is probably unnecessary in these proceedings."

[infocom@pro.net]

Alcohol-induced Amnesia, Blacking Out and Filling in the Blanks . . .

Saskatoon Police Service Lawyer Works Hard to Challenge the Credibility of Neil Stonechild's Friend Jason Roy

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas - Bob Kennedy
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

January 7, 2003

The filling-in process related to the use of alcohol.

As a University of Saskatchewan professor continued to testify about the effects of alcohol on memory, the lawyer representing the police laid out a scenario to challenge Jason Roy's claim, that he saw his friend Neil Stonechild in the back seat of a police cruiser, before he disappeared and was later found frozen to death.

The following is from the transcript of the public inquiry during a cross examination by lawyer Barry Rossoman, of John Richardson a professor with the Department of Pharmacology, the College of Medicine.

Q The person comes to believe that which he thinks
is true. A Correct.
Q And the process can occur over a period of time, there is not a set time of hours or days or whatever. A Correct.
Q It can be quite a while?
A Correct. Years as well, Q Years? A Yes.
Q Now, you talked a bit about, I’m not sure of the correct term, alcohol-induced amnesia, or alcoholic amnesia, which I think some of us might refer to as blacking out. A Yes, these are all synonyms, yes.
Q Right. And it’s those blackouts that the person is filling in for generally?
A In situations where, yes, the person fills, the brain shows in for any gap in the memory, not just gaps caused by alcohol, but Q I see. A -- that’s an example of a situation in which there is a gap in the memory, but there can be other situations. Q There can be other situations where this filling-
in -- A Yes. Q -- process occurs? A Right. Q It could occur in other process -- in other situations as well? A Yes.
Q Correct. All right, now if a person has blacked out due to this alcohol, due to an over-consumption of alcohol and goes through this filling-in process and comes out with a scenario that makes sense in his or her mind, and whether consciously or unconsciously, particularly if it’s unconscious, is that person likely to remember that he or she had, at one point, blacked out?
A It depends on how complete the filling-in is. If the period of blacking out could be totally forgot -- well, filled in, and then the person many years later would report, or remember, that they didn’t black out, so if that’s what you’re asking? Q Yes. So if it’s a -- if the process goes far enough, the person may not even recall that he or she had blacked out.
A Yes, many years later. Correct.
Q Suppose that you have a person that drank a considerable amount of time, and I don’t know how much, but enough that memory issues did arise, and this person started drinking earlier in the day with a friend, and basically gets pretty drunk, probably, probably drinking four or five hours. And then these people decide to go out and get some munchies, or something like that, and in the process of getting munchies they 18
end up looking for a lost friend, or a lost girlfriend or something, and it’s cold out, and one of them is determined to find this girlfriend and the other one is getting cold, and they end up having a bit of a spat, and a little bit of swearing goes on and they part company. Okay, so one guy keeps going, and nobody knows where. The other guy intends to go back to where, to the party he had left. Now, he gets back home and doesn’t really say anything about where his friend is, doesn’t really know, doesn’t necessarily remember whether he bought the munchies he set out to get or not. But the next day his friend doesn’t appear and no one seems to know where he is. And people start calling around, and trying to figure out where this person is, but nobody is able to figure out where he is. And a few days later the person is found frozen to death out in an area where nobody can explain how he got to. Of course the police start an investigation, and they trace down the friend who had made it home, or back to the party, and he tells a story about how he had gone to the party and they had gone out to look for this guy’s girlfriend, and they had a fight and parted company. Not a physical fight, but a yelling match, and parted company, and then he blacked out. That’s what he says. Now, over a period of time this person and others are trying to figure out what happened to the friend who froze to death, and theories go around, the theory is that well, maybe, maybe Bill who he had a fight with earlier picked him up and dumped him. Somebody says well, maybe the cops did it. But nobody knows for sure. So months or years later this person, whose friend disappeared, finally says well, you know, I saw him in the back of a police car that night. And people say, oh. And then time goes on and he says well, I saw him in the back of the police car, and he was handcuffed. And he goes on, as time goes on, and he says well, I saw him in the back of a police car, and he was handcuffed and there was blood on his face. And at some point later he says well, he was handcuffed and he had blood on his face, and he was screaming for his life.

Is that consistent with filling-in, the filling-in process?

A Yes, that would be consistent.

Q So even if it took a period of months, that’s consistent with that process?

A Yes, it is.

PREVIOUSLY REPORTED
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =1971#1971

[admin]

Police Officer's Phones Were Tapped During Aboriginal Freezing Death Probe in Saskatoon

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas - Bob Kennedy
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

January 7, 2004

A 31 year veteran of the Police Service was on the witness stand at the public inquiry in Saskatoon, and Sergeant Murray Zoorkan testified about a fellow officer's loud, emotional "venting" about his suspected involvement in the Neil Stonechild case.

"Larry was excited, came up and started talking. And he attracted the attention of Brian Trainor at the end of the hallway and of a couple other sergeants that were in the writing room -- or not the writing room, the sergeants' office, which was four or five steps away as well. "

It was November 13th, ten years after Neil's death, "In the police station 6:30 at that time is shift change, things are more or less quiet, people are in the locker room or going back to the parade room and that, and I was filling up a water bottle at a cooler and Larry Hartwig came up and talked to me," Zoorkan wrote in his notes. "I asked him, Did you do anything wrong? And Hartwig replied, and the words were, Absolutely not, is what he said."

When Neil Stonechild was found dead, under suspicious circumstances in 1990, two Saskatoon police officers were rumoured to have been involved. In fact, on the night the 17 year old Saulteaux First Nation youth disappeared, constables Larry Hartwig and Bradley Senger were dispatched to a complaint involving a drunk Neil Stonechild. They reported that when they investigated the drunk and disorderly incident at the Snowberry Down Apartments, Neil was no longer there.

Staff Sgt. Zoorkan, who became the Saskatoon Police Service's first Cold Case investigator, testified that Larry Hartwig approached him in November 2000, and complained about RCMP "lies" when they questioned him about his involvement in the Stonechild case.

"Larry was walking through the detective office and we started talking there. We went into another office area, so it was a little bit more private, which was right there. Larry had said he had done nothing wrong. He also agreed that things had got off track with the interview between him and the RCMP. I told him I'd get back to him in a few days. And then Larry had made a comment that he was mad at himself -for ot picking up on the RCMP lies,-is what he had said. . . he never did tell me what he thought the lies were and I didn't push him to find out what it was. I guess I just thought that it all went back to the interview going off track."

In 2000, Sgt. Zoorkan was the police service liaison with the RCMP squad investigating Aboriginal complaints of police abuse against them. After his informal conversation with Larry Hartwig, Zoorkan called for an internal investigation of Hartwig's possible involvement.

During Zoorkan's testimony he revealed that Hartwig told him another officer, Constable Ernie Louttit, had information that Gary Pratt, a Stonechild acquaintance, had been responsible for Stonechild's death and that Stonechild's missing shoe was in Pratt's car and that Pratt was being investigated for murder. Recently, Pratt was granted standing at the inquiry and is receiving funding to pay his lawyer to represent him at the hearings because of the frequent allegations about him.

Meanwhile, it also was revealed in Zoorkan's testimony that the investigation of Hartwig included wiretaps on his phones, but when he listened to some of it and read the transcripts, "there was nothing of any consequence there that we noticed ".

PREVIOUSLY REPORTED BY TURTLE ISLAND NATIVE NETWORK
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... php?t=1142

[infocom@pro.net]

Deputy Police Chief Joins Growing List of Those Critical of Investigation into the Death of Neil Stonechild in 1990

" . . . there needed to be a lot more work done here."

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas - Bob Kennedy
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

January 9, 2004

The lead investigator did not do what should have been done with the probe into the suspicious death of Neil Stonechild, including not taking witness statements.

It's not the first time the lead investigator has been the subject of criticism. This time it is from Deputy Police Chief Dan Wiks, the primary person responsible for coordinating the Saskatoon Police Service efforts with respect to the Stonechild public inquiry.

He testified how he reviewed the file more than once in preparation for the inquiry. In his critique, Wiks said an investigator should have been called to the scene when they found Neil's body in November 1990, and a thorough search should have been made for his missing shoe, " . . .if there just absolutely wasn't any investigator and there wasn't any, then the patrol sergeant should have searched for that shoe. I would have gotten some resources to actually do a search . . . I would have got some patrol people, some uniform people, and I would have spread them out," said Wiks.

But it didn't happen.

As well, he was critical about what information wasn't pursued by Sergeant Keith Jarvis, the lead officer handling the file, " . . .there's obviously a lot of other people mentioned here that statements should have been gotten from . . . the medical staff that picked up the body and transported it to the hospital, what their observations were".

Then there's the fact Sergeant Jarvis went on weekly leave and the file was somehow going to be handled by another Sergeant.

As for that part of the investigation Deputy Chief Wiks testified, "I don't understand it. I don't understand where Brooks come into this mix. Jarvis was given the file to investigate. . . if he was going on days off he should have probably contacted his staff sergeant the next day and confirmed that the file had been transferred. . . The sooner that these interviews are done, the better chance that there is of a clear recollection of whatever information any of these people may have. And I know that there's been discussion around responsibilities, who should be doing what, but when it comes to a file such as this, when you're the lead investigator you are the responsible person, you take on that role, and you make sure that if -- if you're going to hand this thing off to Major Crimes, and I'm not saying that that's a bad thing, it's quite proper, that's what Major Crime people were for, but at the very least you should make sure that it got there."

The Neil Stonechild file did not get there.

Wiks told the inquiry what should have been done for a proper investiagtion to be conducted, "And again what I think would have been done in 1990 is what would be done today, is that the investigator would make a phone call, simple as that, make a phone call to the staff sergeant. Because this would be an important file to me."

Sergeant Jarvis eventually did get back to the file but Deputy Chief Wiks said, " . . . it appears to me that it was concluded on December the 5th, and there needed to be a lot more work done here".

[infocom@pro.net]

Investigator says Mounties Still Don't Know How and Why Neil Stonechild Died

January 8, 2004

A top Mountie testified at the Saskatoon public inquiry, about efforts to find out what happened to a 17 year old member of the Saulteaux First Nation in 1990, "We felt at the end of the investigation that we had done everything possibly within our power to determine how and why Neil Stonechild died and, quite frankly, we weren't able to come up with that answer. That's why we're here."

Although the Saskatoon Police are criticized for conducting a shoddy investigation, the RCMP on the other hand, tried to leave no stone unturned in their efforts, spending thousands of hours.

Chief Superintendent Darrell McFadyen of the RCMP, was the commanding officer in charge of the task force established to investigate matters relating to Aboriginal individuals and their contact with the Saskatoon Police Service.

The task force interviewed something in the area of 200 witnesses in relation to Neil Stonechild's disappearance.

Originally, the task force was mandated to probe the freezing deaths of two Aboriginal men, Rodney Naistus, and Lawrence Wegner on the south side of Saskatoon. They had died within close proximity of one another, in January 2000. On the heels of that was an allegation by Darrell Night that he had been taken to the outskirts of the city and dropped off by members of the Saskatoon Police Service.

The mandate of the RCMP task force also was to determine whether or not it was a practice of members of the Saskatoon Police Service, to take individuals to the outskirts of the city and abandon them.

On February 22, 2000 the Mounties added Neil Stonechild's death to their investigation. What they discovered was disturbing.

Chief Superintendent McFadyen testified that the Saskatoon Police gave the RCMP their full cooperation. However, the Mounties were concerned about the lead investigator Keith Jarvis being aware of certain information that was not recorded in the file and not investigated, and that he didn't follow up on a lead and didn't make certain inquiries that he could have and should have.

"It could have been, well have been neglect, it could well have been a coverup. I don't know."

McFadyen said he wasn't aware of any conspiracy theory but confirmed the RCMP focused on the two police officers who were dispatched to the drunk and disorderly report allegedly involving Neil Stonechild banging on doors and ringing apartment buzzers. " . . .we were directing our focus at two individuals who may well know something that we still don't know to this day."

[infocom@pro.net]

Neil Stonechild Inquiry resumes - suspect police officers are among the final witnesses

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas - Bob Kennedy
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

March 7, 2004

Two police officers will be among the final witnesses to be grilled as the Neil Stonechild public inquiry resumes this week, in Saskatoon.

One theory about his 1990 death, is that he was dumped outside of the city by police officers. However, there is no absolute proof that theory is true.

Nor is there enough proof to confirm the validity of the other theory that Neil was the victim of gang violence, in retribution for his experiences with the illegal sale of drugs and guns.

Constables Lawrence Hartwig and Bradley Senger will have an opportunity to tell their side of the story when they take the witness stand. The two have been the subject of finger pointing, and unsubstantiated allegations that they had Neil Stonechild in the back of their police cruiser when he was last seen alive.

His friend, Jason Roy has even testified he saw Neil badly beaten and pleading for his life in the back of the cruiser.

However, testimony by expert witnesses and legal cross examinations suggest, that too much alcohol and memory loss, or tricks of the mind are responsible for wrong and concoted memories.

[admin]

Final Submissions at the Neil Stonechild Public Inquiry

http://www.cvreporting.com/STONECHILD%20MAY%2018.pdf

http://www.cvreporting.com/STONECHILD%20MAY%2019.pdf

May 18 - 19, 2004

Barry Rossman, lawyer for the Saskatoon Police Service. . .

"Saskatoon Police Service acknowledges that its investigation of the death of the Neil Stonechild matter, and its handling of the concerns of the family of Neil Stonechild should have been better.

Mistakes were made.

The Saskatoon Police Service has learned from them, and has already made some changes to its policies and procedures to try and prevent the happening of the same in the future, and looks forward to this Commission's report and recommendations as to additional matters that it can and should do to improve itself, and to provide better service to the community. "

The police lawyer admitted . . .
- the Neil Stonechild file was prematurely closed and that little or no review of that decision was in fact made.

-there should have been a better search of the scene, especially relating to the missing shoe of Neil Stonechild.

-there should have been better follow-up with a number of witnesses and certain leads.

The last person known to have had contact with neil Stonechild, was his friend Jason Roy. He testified during the inquiry that he saw Neil in the back of a police cruiser, bloodied and looking terrified.

In his submission, police lawyer Rossman said Roy's evidence is unreliable because his testimony changed over time. ". . . no clear
picture emerged as to exactly what happened after Jason Roy and Neil Stonechild parted."

"Mr. Commissioner, in conclusion, I want to say that, as earlier stated in this submission, the Saskatoon Police Service investigation of the death of Neil Stonechild was inadequate, and the response of the Saskatoon Police Service to the concerns raised by the family of Neil Stonechild, particularly his mother, Stella Bignell, in 1990 was also inadequate.

With that, Chief Sabo, on behalf of the Saskatoon Police Service, sincerely apologizes. Mistakes were made. Mrs. Bignell's concerns were not properly addressed. The family of Neil Stonechild and the community deserve better. The Saskatoon Police Service wants to assure the family of Neil Stonechild and the community that the Saskatoon Police Service has learned from its errors and will do whatever it can to prevent this from happening again."

[admin]

One of the theories circulating was that Neil Stonechild's death was caused by violence, gang associations, and money from and about drugs and guns . . . when rumours started to circulate after Neil's death, Gary Pratt's name was tossed around.

May 18, 2004 at the Public Inquiry and during final submissions . . .

Mark Brayford, the lawyer representing Gary Pratt explained, " My Lord, in view of the written submissions made by various participants in relation to Gary Pratt, I wish to make four observations.

Firstly, there is no evidence that Mr. Stonechild might have been killed by Gary Pratt; rather, there is merely gossip, rumour and speculation.

Secondly, even the facts contained within the gossip are inconsistent with the actual facts that are known about Neil Stonechild's death. He was not beaten to death.

Thirdly, assuming the Commission finds there was wrongdoing with respect to the death of Neil Stonechild, it is not the type of criminal misconduct that has ever been associated with Gary Pratt.

Fourthly, and finally, Gary Pratt's behaviour has been consistent with having nothing to hide. He cooperated fully with all aspects of the pre-hearing investigation, and willingly came forward to give blunt, candid evidence as to his innocence.

Gary Pratt appreciated the opportunity to clear the gossip in relation to his involvement in the death of his friend. Thank you, My Lord."

[admin]

The Death of Neil Stonechild, and the Subsequent Investigation

Was Racism a Factor? Was Discrimination a Factor?

"If you direct your deliberations in this Inquiry on the basis that there's no discrete evidence of racism that may have been a contributing factor in the death of Neil Stonechild, then I'm afraid that perhaps you will have approached it too narrowly."

May 18, 2004

The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations was a key player at the Public Inquiry.

During the final submissions, lawyer Catherine Knox urged the Commissioner to give serious consideration to how racism and discrimination were factors.

"We have a history of litigation in this country, apart from our historical data, where we address how members in our society become treated as less than equal members of our society. We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that identifies particular bases upon which nobody should be discriminated against. In the last number of years we've come, I think, some way as a society in recognizing that there are certain among us who are treated or afforded less respect than many among us, and tragically we have come to recognize that among one of the groups that is visited with this disservice on a frequent basis is the Aboriginal peoples in our community.

First Nations peoples within Saskatchewan have a history that has not been canvassed at this Inquiry, but they have a history that makes it clear and apparent that some of them suffer from discrimination and some of them suffer that at the hands of various in our communities, including at various levels of power, be it in the health system, the education system or our justice system.

Mr. Commissioner, the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999 in a decision that we are all perhaps familiar with, the case of R v. Gladue, canvassed a lot of the historical background of First Nations peoples and how within our criminal justice system we have to acknowledge and accept a high degree of discrimination has been practiced against them. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was within the context of the over-representation of First Nations peoples in our -- incarceration in our prison populations. But I invite you, and I'm sure you have, to read again the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Gladue for some of the basic principles that it addresses about discrimination and the history of discrimination and how it can affect individuals, how it can affect communities.

Mr. Commissioner, I'm also going to invite you to look at a second decision of the Supreme Court of Canada -- or two, really. And I have the citations, I have copies with me. I didn't produce them as part of the brief because they address a broader issue. And I was moved to bring them with me this afternoon because of some of the comments that were made this morning about the absence of evidence of racism at this Inquiry. And I think, Mr. Commissioner, that I -- and I'm --

I want to invite you and I want to invite all of us, both as counsel and as individuals who are observing these proceedings, to step back and to look at a big, broader picture issue. If you direct your deliberations in this Inquiry on the basis that there's no discrete evidence of racism that may have been a contributing factor in the death of Neil Stonechild, then I'm afraid that perhaps you will have approached it too narrowly.

Mr. Commissioner, the cases that I ask you to consider, or the cases that I direct you to are as follows, not because they're on point, but because of the statements made by the Supreme Court of Canada on these various occasions on the issue of discrimination and how we assess whether discrimination is a factor in outcomes or behaviours that are visited upon others, be they within the context of employment or any other such context. And I might say, that the first case I'm going to refer you to is in the context of discrimination within a place of employment.

Mr. Commissioner, the case I direct you to is Brooks v. Canada Safeway Limited. It is a 1989 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada reported at 1 Supreme Court Reports, page 1219. And, Mr. Commissioner, the second case to which I direct your attention or ask that you consider is Law v. Canada (The Minister of Employment and Immigration) reported (1999) 1 Supreme Court Reports, page 497. The third, as I've already alluded to, is R. v. Gladue reported (1999) 1 Supreme Court Reports, page 688. And a fourth one that I refer you to is the Governing Counsel of the University of Toronto, et al, v. Governing Counsel of University of Toronto, The Attorney General of Ontario and others, it's a long name. But, again, it rises out of the employment context and it is, in fact, a 1990 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada reported 3 Supreme Court Reports, 3 page 229.

Mr. Commissioner, I bring these 5 cases to you and ask that you consider them, because it is within each of these cases that the Court talks about the concept or the principle of discrimination. And without exception in these cases, the Courts refer back to a review of the issues of discrimination that was done by Justice Abella in -- again in the employment context in a -- in an employment context, but they quote some of the content of the Abella Report. And the Court said, and I'm reading from page 11 of the Brooks decision: "A thorough study of
'systemic discrimination' in Canada is to be found in the Abella Report on equality in employment. The terms of reference of the Royal Commission
instructed it 'to inquire into the most efficient, effective and equitable means of promoting employment opportunities, eliminating systemic discrimination and assisting individuals to compete for employment opportunities on an equal basis.'" Although Judge Abella chose not to offer a precise definition of systemic discrimination, the essentials may be gleaned from the following comments found at page 2 of the report:
"Discrimination ... means practices or attitudes that have, whether by design or impact, the effect of limiting an individual's or a group's right to the opportunities generally available because of attributed rather than actual characteristics. It is not a question of whether this discrimination is motivated by an intentional desire to obstruct someone's potential, or whether it is the accidental by-product of innocently motivated practices or systems. If the barrier is affecting certain groups in a disproportionately
negative way, it is a signal that the practices that lead to this adverse impact may be discriminatory." She goes on to say: "I would say then that discrimination may be described as a distinction, whether intentional or not but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group, which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations or disadvantages on such individual or group not imposed upon others, or which withholds or limits access to opportunities, benefits and advantages available to other members of society. Distinctions based on personal characteristics attributed to the individual solely on the basis of association with a group will rarely escape the charge of discrimination, while those based on an individual's merits and capacities will rarely be so classed."

As I said, Mr. Commissioner, the definition or the review is within the context of employment, but other cases go on to -- the other cases I refer to you go on to build on the definition in the Abella Report, and I suggest to you they place a context on some of the considers that need be made and make it clear that there does not have to be proof, actual proof that in this particular case there was discrimination or that there was racism in order for you to make a finding that, in fact, it may have been or was a factor in either the death of Neil Stonechild or the investigation that flowed from his death and the way that it was conducted. "

[Guest]

May 19, 2004

Proof of a Cover-up?

Yes, says Darren Winegarden, the lawyer representing Jason Roy, Neil Stonechild's friend who was 16 years old, when Neil died in December 1990.

The following are excerpts from Winegarden's submission to the Commission of Inquiry into the mysterious death of Neil Stonechild.

"If it were not for the persistence and the evidence of Jason Roy, this Commission and these proceedings would never have taken place. Mr. Roy has consistently recounted the same story of the events of November 24th, 1990 for 14 years now. He approached the Saskatoon Police Service
several times to try and report this story, but has always been rebuffed. It was not until after similar freezing deaths of Aboriginal people occurred in January and February of 2000 and the attention of the entire nation was turned to the conduct of the Saskatoon Police Service and their dealings with Aboriginal people that fair consideration was finally paid to Jason's story.

It is noteworthy that Mr. Roy has maintained throughout these proceedings and even in the face of harsh cross-examination and
completely unnecessary investigations into his personal history that he has nothing to hide. Instead he has laid his life bare for all to see in order to assist this Commission in its work. We submit that it cannot be said by
anyone that Mr. Roy has brought forward his story, his evidence, for financial or any other sort of personal gain. Rather, it is not unreasonable to say that the burden of bringing forward this weighty evidence has cost Mr. Roy everything. Indeed, giving his evidence and attending these
proceedings has exhausted all of the resources that were ever available to him.

Mr. Commissioner, with respect to these proceedings Jason Roy is not the perfect witness; indeed, he's not the perfect client. However, I submit the body of evidence in these proceedings does point to the truth of Mr. Roy's
story regarding what he saw on that cold night in November of 1990.
Firstly, the evidence presented in these proceedings simply does not support the assertion that was made by Mr. Plaxton, that Jason Roy was too drunk to remember on the night in question. It is true that Neil and Jason drank that evening, but Jason was no stranger to alcohol and from all accounts he acted rationally that night. He has the sense to come in from the cold, and so on. Also it is noteworthy that when the police stopped him that night he was not arrested for public drunkenness but rather he was simply released and allowed to leave.

It was Mr. Plaxton also who said that there was no meaningful corroboration of Mr. Roy's evidence. However, on the contrary we submit that Jason's core evidence is simple, straightforward and fully corroborated, Mr.Commissioner.

Mr. Commissioner, perhaps there were bits of confusion surrounding other events, other issues where Mr. Roy may be mistaken or confused. But on this point there is no confusion and there is full corroboration. Jason Roy was with Neil Stonechild on the night in question and he saw Neil being taken away by the police.

Moreover, this is all that I urge you to find with respect to Mr. Roy's evidence, that Jason Roy had told people on the night in question that Neil
Stonechild was in the custody of the Saskatoon City Police. That is incontrovertible on the evidence, Mr. Commissioner, and everything else
follows from that fact, I submit.

While there is confusion with respect to some of Jason's evidence on other
details this central portion of his testimony has always remained unchanged.

Mr. Commissioner, Mr. Roy doesn't say that Neil was taken away by the Pratts, or that he went off with other friends, that he went home; he said the police took him away and he has always said that. My Lord, it is also significant that there is full corroboration of Jason Roy's evidence that he gave a false name to the police. There is CPIC evidence that the very police officers in question checked the false name that Jason Roy says that he gave. In addition to proving a significant element of Jason Roy's story the CPIC record demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jason Roy stood beside that police cruiser on the night in question and spoke to the very officers who are in question. I submit it is no stretch of the imagination to believe that when he stood beside that car Jason looked into the back seat and saw Neil Stonechild there.

We submit that the evidence shows that as the implication of what Jason Roy saw became clear to him, we submit that it took some time for this to occur, but Mr. Roy became more and more uncomfortable with those facts.
Ultimately, he needed help dealing with his feelings from people like Brenda Valiaho and Father Andre. And we have all seen, it is still
difficult for him and he is still scared.

Mr. Commissioner, I submit that that is reasonable because, quite frankly, the implication of Jason Roy's story is enormous. It was Mr. Stevenson that alluded to this implication in his oral submissions regarding Mr. Roy's
evidence. Mr. Stevenson said if there is a coverup, then it went right to the top. Well, Mr. Commissioner, we submit that this is precisely what we have seen in these proceedings. On the evidence, every senior officer with the Saskatoon Police Service, except, of course, with the Communications Officer, Dave Scott, every senior officer who took the stand in these proceedings conveniently had no recollection of the death of
Neil Stonechild, the investigation into his death or the front page news story published in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix in March, 1991. And that
story noted that the police investigation was sorely inadequate. At one point I think Mr. Plaxton said there is no evidence at all of a coverup. And I don't mean to be flippant at all, as I say this, My Lord, but isn't that exactly what you would expect to see from a successful coverup? It would be undetectable. Wouldn't we expect to see an alibi for everyone implicated, a general lack of information, files being destroyed, and everyone marching in lock step in a paramilitary organization? And isn't that exactly what we have seen in these proceedings, Mr. Commissioner?

In other matters, Mr. Commissioner, the submissions made by Mr. Watson that Jason Roy is an out and out liar is most troubling. Simply
that's because why would Jason lie? What has he got to gain from lying today? We can all understand why the police might lie. They have
everything to lose, and that's both the individual officers and the Saskatoon Police Service collectively. On the other hand, bringing forward
this story has cost Mr. Roy everything. He has gained nothing by telling this story. Likewise, why would Jason lie about the statement taken by Sergeant Jarvis on November 30th, 1990? It was Jason, himself, who contacted Sergeant Jarvis at the Bignell family's encouraging, and that's what he did.

I think on the facts, Mr. Commissioner, and I submit that it is possible
that Sergeant Jarvis glossed over Jason Roy's evidence to protect others in the Saskatoon Police Service, and it is also possible that Jason was
simply too scared to press him on that issue. Of course, as you consider this question, My Lord, we submit that you must remember the context in which Jason Roy found himself November 30th, 1990. Here he is with another member of the Saskatoon City Police being questioned less than a week after Neil Stonechild was in the back seat of a Saskatoon Police cruiser, and only a day after he was found dead. Mr. Commissioner, Jason would have been terrified.

What is also most troubling, Mr. Commissioner, is that Sergeant Jarvis told members of the RCMP on tape, and we all sat here in this room, in one of these rooms, and we sat through the playing of that entire tape, and on tape Sergeant Jarvis divulged that Jason Roy had told him about Neil Stonechild being in the back seat of that police cruiser, only later to recant that statement on the flimsy, and I submit wholly unbelievable excuse that it was a memory implanted by faulty RCMP questioning. My Lord, on the evidence, Sergeant Jarvis was a long-term member of the Saskatoon Police Service. He was trained in questioning techniques and he was quite unflappable on the stand, I submit. I submit, also, that the only time he became the least bit perturbed during these proceedings was on the tape that we all heard after he realized that he had given evidence that was very bad for the Police Service and very bad for him.

One last point, My Lord. It is my submission with respect to these proceedings that the burden of proof that you must weigh is the lesser burden. You need only find that the evidence of Jason Roy is credible on the civic burden, the balance of probabilities, rather than the criminal scale, beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, why Mr. Gibson submits that there may not have been sufficient proof of evidence resulting from the RCMP investigation, to me the test for criminal charges. I submit that this is precisely why the Minister of Justice implemented this proceeding. The test you have to apply to the evidence in these proceedings generally and to Jason Roy's evidence more specifically is the lesser burden.
Thank you, My Lord. If there are no questions, those are all my comments.

[Guest]

There was Saskatoon Police Service involvement in the death of Neil Stonechild and there were attempts to cover that up . . .

"The actions attributed to the Saskatoon Police Service speak of an illness within the culture of the Police Service of Saskatoon, a dysfunction
infecting what should be a most venerable institution." Lawyer for Neil Stonechild's mother Stella Bignell.

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas
Bob Kennedy,Oneida
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

May 23, 2004

In the final days of the public inquiry in Saskatoon last week, an Aboriginal mother made sure her perspective was put on the record, concerning the circumstances surrounding the mysterious death of her son, fourteen years ago, and the subsequent, suspicious police investigation.

Donald Worme, and Gregory Curtis, the lawyers representing Stella Bignell, the mother of Neil Stonechild, and his family, delivered key messages about this sad and tragic story, in their detailed, final submissions.

How did he come to be in the remote location on such a terrifically cold Saskatchewan night? How her child deceased in such a lonely and tragic manner. And, of course, who is responsible for such a hideous act.

Worme asked, "Why had she and her family's repeated inquiries to the Saskatoon Police Service been continually rebuffed in a very public, and might I say forceful way. And as it turns out, Mr. Commissioner, in a most deceitful way. Why had she and her family's repeated requests to the Saskatoon Police Service to be given back the clothing of her late son, why was that ignored, and that that same clothing ultimately destroyed without further regard for her or, indeed, without further regard for the forensic evidence that such may have afforded us.

And why, why would the memory of the tragic circumstances of finding her poor son be subject of a most callous joke with the leaving of an old running shoe in a secure area of the Saskatoon Police Service headquarters marked "Neils missing shoe", why would that happen? That's the questions that she asked."

The answers to the questions of Mrs. Bignell and her family have not been provided, but Stella Bignell and her lawyers are still hopeful, ". . .it is our respectful submission that there is sufficient evidence before you, Mr.Commissioner, that would permit you to provide those answers within your report.

Make no mistake, Stella Bignell is a furiously proud woman, a strong First Nations woman dedicated to her child, as it seems only a mother can be. And dedicated even now in his memory to try to bring some measure of dignity to his most undignified passing, to try to understand how her child that she carried, that she birthed, that she nurtured, came to end up in this remote location.-"

It was made clear that Mrs. Bignell, and her family, are not against police, " . . .but, rather, we are against bad policing", explained her lawyer. That includes an obvious cover-up and lies of a deputy police chief, and the former Chief of Police.

Lawyer Gregory Curtis stated, " . . .in fact, there was Saskatoon Police Service involvement in the death of Neil Stonechild and that there were attempts to cover that up. . . there are efforts by some Saskatoon Police Service officers to hide something. I think theres clear evidence of that. We submit that there is evidence for you to find that there was something more than just a horribly bungled investigation that was being covered up."

Keith Jarvis, the lead investigator is the target of key criticism for his unbelievable explanations of various events. Jarvis is not credible for a number of reasons including, " . . .because Mr. Jarvis, oddly enough, shortly before he retired had in his mind this file sufficient enough to direct the destruction of the clothing. This is shortly before his retirement, three years after the death. A little over six years after he tells the RCMP he has absolutely no recall of Neil Stonechilds name. That particular fact, that this clothing was ordered destroyed, I dont know, I guess theres certainly sufficient evidence given at the Inquiry for you to make your determination on how that happened and why that happened. That certainly is one of the points that we find quite disconcerting".

In fact, Curtis believes Jarvis IS the so-called Smoking Gun, that people suggested was never found in this inquiry.

[Guest]

Two Worlds Colliding - A World Premiere . . .

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas
Bob Kennedy,Oneida
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

October 22, 2004

The Neil Stonechild inquiry report is expected to be released Tuesday, Oct. 26th, by Saskatchewan Justice.

For documentary film insight into this incident and others involving Aboriginals . . . Join Saskatoon filmmaker Tasha Hubbard for the World Premiere of her film TWO WORLDS COLLIDING at the ImagineNative Film Festival in Toronto.

Two Worlds Colliding premieres Friday, October 22, at 7:00 pm at the Al Green Theatre, 750 Spadina Street, Toronto, Ontario.

The following is an EXCLUSIVE Turtle Island Native Network 'e-mail interview' ( Q. and A. ) with Tasha Hubbard whose documentary film Two Worlds Colliding captures the tragic and compelling stories of the freezing deaths of Aboriginals in Saskatchewan.

Question: Did you follow the Neil Stonechild Inquiry and does your film reflect the realities of that and other cases in Saskatoon.

Answer: As part of the overall film, I did follow the Stonechild Inquiry, but we were only able to shoot 4 days inside the inquiry. Because of our heavy editing schedule, I wasn't able to attend very often, but I would stop in if I had a free afternoon. I did keep up by reading the Inquiry transcriptions and talking to key people as the inquiry went on over the six months. My film incorporates the inquiry as part of the overall arc of events that came out of Darrell Night's story, including the deaths of Rodney Naistus and Lawrence Wegner, and the events within the Saskatoon Police Force.

Question: Can you describe the story line (as much detail as possible), the characters and how it all relates to reality for our people in Saskatoon and cities elsewhere today.

Answer: The film opens with Darrell Night telling his story of his abandonment in the middle of winter; I try to take people into the time it happened. It then follows his meeting with Sergeant Bruce Ehalt, who took Darrell's story seriously and enabled the story to become public. The film then speaks of the two men who were found frozen to death in the same area where Darrell Night was dropped off: Rodney Naistus and Lawrence Wegner. The film introduces the parents of Lawrence Wegner, and gives them the opportunity to speak of their son as a boy and as a young man. I then introduce Oliver Williams, who runs the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations Special Investigations Unit. He is a former RCMP officer and is able to give a perspective of the treatment of Aboriginal people by police forces in Saskatchewan. Don Worme is introduced next, who is the lawyer for Darrell Night and the family of Neil Stonechild. His firm also represents the family of Lawrence Wegner.

Other characters include SPS Aboriginal Liaison Craig Nyirfa and Chief Russ Sabo and their efforts to make change within the police force, and Constable Larry Hartwig.

In terms of how the film relates to Aboriginal people in Saskatoon and elsewhere, the film speaks of the uneven power relationship that exists, the fear that Aboriginal people have, and how police need to respond and find ways to counter-act that fear. It also speaks to how Aboriginal people are viewed within the community of Saskatoon and what needs to change.

Question: What is it about your film that would be termed compelling? The script, interviews, dialogue, monologue, filming quality - the technical optics?

Answer: I think the most compelling aspect of the film are the interviews, especially with Darrell Night, who is a natural storyteller, and is able to really take you with him on that cold night. Also compelling is Lawrence Wegner's mother. She is able to get to the heart of the matter: Her son and other Aboriginal people are viewed as "less than" non-Aboriginal people in Saskatoon and the prairies, and that everyone deserves respect and compassion.

Question: Can you kindly provide details of all your films to date with a quick cutline to each.

Answer: I have co-directed previous films with Doug Cuthand of Blue Hill Productions. These include the NFB production Donna's Story, which won Best Documentary at the Saskatchewan Showcase awards in 2002, and Circle of Voices, an independent production which won Best Documentary at ImagineNATIVE Film Festival in 2000.

Question: What other work is underway now in your career?

Answer: I am developing a film on my cross-cultural adoption, and how it affects me, my future husband and both of my families, especially since I now have a nephew whose father is my adoptive brother, and whose mother is my first cousin from my Cree family. It is a film I've wanted to do for a few years, and I finally feel in a place where I can approach these personal issues.

I am also attending graduate school at the University of Saskatchewan, and hope to complete my Master's in the new year and start on my PhD soon after.

tashahubbard@hotmail.com