The Portapique sign on Highway 2 was adorned with a NS tartan sash following the mass shooting that began there on April 18, 2020. Photo: Joan Baxter

In the hours after the mass murders of April 18/19, the RCMP and Halifax police interviewed 13 people about what they knew about the gunman, who the Examiner calls GW. Four of the 13 people additionally told police about what happened to them during the attacks.

Along with information obtained from police officers, those 13 informant statements became the basis for the RCMP’s applications to the court to obtain up to 25 search warrants and production orders to conduct their investigation. Such an application is called an Information to Obtain (ITO), and each one was sworn to by RCMP Sergeant Angela Hawryluk. Having read the ITOs, justices of the peace signed off on the search warrants and production orders, which allowed police to search various properties for weapons and the like, and to seize computer equipment and search for data.

But the ITOs submitted to the court were sealed, so a consortium of media organizations (including the Halifax Examiner) has applied to the court to get them unsealed.

It’s a long, tedious process. In May, Judge Laurie Halfpenny-MacQuarrie ordered the release of seven highly redacted ITOs. We challenged the redactions. The judge developed a procedure such that in July, the Crown gave her evidence for why the redactions should stand — but that evidence was provided in a secret hearing that we could not be present for. A couple of weeks later, the judge signed off on a handful of unredactions. Included in those unredactions was the explosive claim by one of the informants that GW smuggled drugs and weapons from Maine and was selling drugs in Portapique and Economy. (The RCMP issued a statement saying this was not the case.) But otherwise, the unredactions were mostly minor matters. More important, the vast majority of redactions were not unredacted.

We appealed Halfpenny-MacQuarrie’s ruling about process, and a Supreme Court judge will hear the matter sometime in the new year. But in the meanwhile, Halfpenny-MacQuarrie’s process continues, and we’re at various stages of the next 18 ITOs.

As I said, it’s tedious, and costing the media organizations a lot of money.

But along the way, something remarkable has happened. As the police investigation progressed, last month police discovered that some piece of information included in the first seven ITOs was “inaccurate” and “erroneous.”

To its credit, last week the Crown alerted the court (and therefore the media consortium) about the inaccurate information. That’s because that information was used in Hawryluk’s sworn statements, and then was used again in the secret July hearing, and so the Crown has the obligation to correct the court record.

To be clear: there’s no reason to think that Sergeant Hawryluk knowingly provided false or incorrect information to the court. She believed that the details of the ITOs were true at the time she made the application to the court, and the informants had not been cross-examined and their evidence had not been tested in court.

However, the Crown still wants to keep the information redacted, even though it’s false. In a brief filed with the court today, provincial Crown lawyers Shauna MacDonald and Mark Heerema first explain the incorrect information, and then put forward a weak argument for keeping it redacted:

  1. Evidence at the ex parte in camera hearing on October 27, 2020 revealed that certain redacted information contained within the first (7) ITOs has been determined through investigation to be inaccurate.
  2. Although the material was redacted on the basis of an ongoing investigation, the investigation has progressed to the point where its release would no longer compromise it; however, the investigation is not at the point where the erroneous information can be corrected or properly contextualized publicly.
  3. The Crown argues that s.487.3(2)(b)(iv) applies as a basis for maintaining a temporary redaction until such time as the investigation is at a stage where either context and accurate information can be disclosed, or a proper consideration of fair trial rights is made.1

The footnote reads:

Fair trial rights have not been advanced as a basis for redaction as no charges have been laid. Should any type of charges result from the ongoing investigation, the Crown submits notice to affected parties and a fulsome consideration of the issue is appropriate.

It’s my opinion that the Crown has no business “contextualizing” the erroneous information for the public. And I don’t know what to make of the footnote. There are currently no charges laid related to the mass murders — the gunman is dead, and no one else has been implicated. One read of the footnote is that it suggests that whoever provided the erroneous information could face charges, which in turn suggests not that someone mistakenly gave “erroneous” information to police, but rather did so purposefully.

(Read the entire brief here.)

But the obvious question is: what was “erroneous”?

There were other pieces of information in the seven ITOs, but all of that was provided by police officers. Surely, it did not take six months of investigation to discover that information provided solely by police officers was incorrect. Additionally, the Crowns’ brief seems to suggest that whoever provided the erroneous information could face criminal charges; the notion that a police officer was involved in criminal activity related to the mass murder seems, well, implausible.

That leaves the 13 informants.

For the sake of analysis, I’ve used just two of the seven ITOs. All seven ITOs use substantially the same narrative, but as the introductory paragraphs vary in length and number, the numbering in each varies slightly. The first ITO I’ve used is numbered 20-0641; you can read it here; it includes 11 of the 13 informant statements; these 11 statements are in all seven ITOs, so from the Crown’s wording — “certain redacted information contained within the first (7) ITOs has been determined through investigation to be inaccurate” — I think it likely that the erroneous information is contained in one of those 11 statements. But just to make sure, I’ve also used a second ITO, which is numbered 20-0668; it includes the other two informant statements that are not in all seven ITOs , and you can read it here.

The names of the 13 informants are redacted, but I identify them by paragraph set numbers as follows:

Informant #1 [Paragraph set 20 (20-0641)] — a man who was shot on Portapique Beach Road but survived.

Informant #2 [Paragraph set 21 (20-0641)] — GW’s commonlaw spouse, who I’ll refer to as LB.

Informant #3 [Paragraph set 22 (20-0641)] — someone who knew GW, talked about his mental state, and knew he collected police cars and dressed up like a cop.

Informant #4 [Paragraph set 23 (20-0641)] — someone who knew GW and LB, and knew GW had guns and a bullet-proof vest.

Informant #5 [Paragraph set 24 (20-0641)] — someone who knew GW and LB, received a text from LB at 6pm on April 18, and knew GW had guns.

Informant #6 [Paragraph set 25 (20-0641)] — someone who knew GW had assaulted someone in the past, and knew he had a lookalike police car, a uniform, and guns.

Informant #7 [Paragraph set 26  (20-0641)] — someone who knew GW and said that he was abusive, and who also knew that GW had police uniform and badge.

Informant #8 [Paragraph set 27 (20-0641)] — a friend of GW who knew that he had an uncle in the RCMP.

Informant #9 [Paragraph set 28 (20-0641)] — someone who knew details of the various properties, and who said that GW had smuggled guns and drugs.

Informant #10 [Paragraph set 29 (20-0641)] — an employee at Sid Sells Signs, a sign shop in Truro, who said he told GW it would be illegal to put RCMP-like stickers on his car.

Informant #11 [Paragraph set 30 (20-0641)] — another employee at Sid Sells Signs, who gave police the name of the employee who sold the decals to GW, and who was able to use the business computer to see exactly what GW had purchased.

Informant #12 [Paragraph set 26 (20-0668)]— a person who lives on Highway 4, whose residence GW visited the morning of April 19.

Informant #13 [Paragraph set 27 (20-0668)]— a person who witnessed the murders of Heidi Stephenson and Joey Webber.

Whatever the erroneous information is, we know that it is still redacted. In the analysis that follows, I make my best informed guess as to what the subject of each redaction entailed. Some are pretty obviously names or addresses. Others I’ve been able to figure out through other reporting. Still others I don’t have a clue about, so describe them simply with a question mark.

I’ll now list each informant, with a short synopsis of each paragraph, my informed guesses as to redactions, and I’ll then make some comments about each paragraph set.


Informant #1

[Paragraph set 20 (20-0641)] A man who was shot on Portapique Beach Road but survived.

20. REDACTED (name) provided statement to Cst. Jeff MacFarlane and Cst. Mike Woolcock, and said:
20.1 REDACTED (?) saw fire
20.2 REDACTED (details of geography in Portapique?) saw flames, drove down to check out
20.3 saw man with RCMP car
20.4 saw GW’s garage was on fire
20.5 Again saw man in front of burning house
20.6 REDACTED (name) presumed it was an RCMP officer
20.7 police car pulled alongside them and driver pulled gun
20.8 cars were two feet apart
20.9 “Lucky for them” REDACTED (something happened to make them realize they were about to be shot)
20.10 REDACTED (name of driver) ducked, REDACTED (detail of shooting), REDACTED (detail of shooting)
20.11 saw actually RCMP cops arriving at scene
20.12 explained situation
20.13 REDACTED (name) said “it was” REDACTED (?) GW because he had lookalike RCMP car
20.14 found bullet REDACTED (detail of bullet)
20.15 details about GW
20.16 REDACTED (name) details about where fires were
20.17 REDACTED (name) details about car
20.18 REDACTED (name) couldn’t be sure, but his “instinct told him it was” REDACTED (?) GW
20.19 saw a gun REDACTED (detail of gun?) and must have ducked REDACTED (?), and two more shots REDACTED (detail of shot)
20.20 REDACTED (details of car)
20.21 REDACTED (details of fire?)
20.22 Details about GW’s properties
20.23 unredacted: as the receptionist at his denturist place so she’s usually around
20.24 REDACTED (name) talked with GW two or three times a year REDACTED (?)
20.25 REDACTED (name) doesn’t know girlfriend’s name unredacted: but she worked at the denturist company
20.26 Describes GW
20.27 REDACTED (place where Taurus was parked)
20.28 REDACTED (name) didn’t know about GW’s guns
20.29 REDACTED (name) about GW’s FB profile

The redactions are not substantial, and deal only with very particular facts concerning the victim’s wounds and details of the fire scenes.


Informant #2

[Paragraph set 21 (20-0641)] GW’s commonlaw spouse, LB.

Statement of REDACTED (name)
21. REDACTED (name) gave statement to Cst. Terry Brown, saying:
21.1 REDACTED (names?) were in the warehouse having drinks. “They weren’t married but had FaceTimed friends” REDACTED (?)
21.2 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
21.3 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
21.4 GW poured gas all over cottage REDACTED (?) then went to warehouse to burn that
21.5 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
21.6 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
21.7 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
21.8 REDACTED (?) and “escaped and ran into woods”
21.9 Guns in front seat of car
21.10 REDACTED (name) could see smoke and heard gunshots
21.11 description of guns REDACTED (kind of gun) and REDACTED (kind of gun)
21.12 car that looked like RCMP car
21.13 GW poured gas on vehicles
21.14 REDACTED (?) another Taurus in Dartmouth
21.15 only one car that looked like police car
21.16 REDACTED (name) hid in woods then went to REDACTED (address)
21.17 GW doesn’t have cell phone
21.18 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
21.19 GW has REDACTED (uncle) in RCMP, discussion of uniforms unredacted: an uncle
21.20 REDACTED (name) said GW wasn’t a cop
21.21 REDACTED (name) said when she was in the woods she heard a couple of guys on the back road, then shots. Then the house went up in flames.

The redactions are substantial, including six paragraphs that are entirely redacted. It’s impossible to tell from context what the redacted paragraphs refer to.


Informant #3

[Paragraph set 22 (20-0641)] Someone who knew GW, talked about his mental state, and knew he collected police cars and dressed up like a cop.

Statement of REDACTED (name)
22. REDACTED (name) was interviewed by two HRP cops.
22.1 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
22.2 REDACTED (name) said GW was abused as boy. REDACTED (pronoun) said GW abused REDACTED (name)
22.3 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
22.4 GW had denture clinic and REDACTED (name) worked with him.
22.5 GW had mental breakdown and talked about the deed for the property in Portapique. REDACTED (?)
22.6 REDACTED (name) said GW had guns
22.7 GW was paranoid about pandemic REDACTED (?)
22.8 GW talked about guns but REDACTED (name) didn’t know how he got the guns
22.9 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
22.10 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
22.11 GW collected police cars
22.12 GW dressed up like cop
22.13 lots of cars
22.14 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
22.15 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)

The redactions are substantial, including six paragraphs that are entirely redacted. It’s impossible to tell from context what the redacted paragraphs refer to.


Informant #4

[Paragraph set 23 (20-0641)] Someone who knew GW and LB, and knew GW had guns and a bullet-proof vest.

23. REDACTED (name) gave statement to HRP cop and RCMP cop
23.1 GW is REDACTED (name) boyfriend
23.2 REDACTED (name) has been at Portapique property
23.3 REDACTED (name) didn’t know where GW got decals for cars
23.4 REDACTED (name) thought GW had a bullet-proof vest
23.5 GW collected guns REDACTED (?)
23.6 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
23.7 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
23.8 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
23.9 REDACTED (name) didn’t know if there were weapons at Dartmouth property
23.10 Cameras at garage REDACTED (name) thought he was being watched by cameras.
23.11 GW owns denture clinics
23.12 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)

The redactions are substantial, including six paragraphs that are entirely redacted. From context, the redacted paragraphs appear to refer to other details about GW and his properties.


Informant #5 

[Paragraph set 24 (20-0641)] Someone who knew GW and LB, received a text from LB at 6pm on April 18, and knew GW had guns.

24. REDACTED (name) gave statement to HRP
24.1 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
24.2 REDACTED (name) received a text from REDACTED (name, LB), which was picture of her with GW in warehouse, at 6pm.
24.3 REDACTED (name) went to Portland Street to meet police.
24.4 REDACTED (name) said GW was a sociopath, abusive REDACTED (details)
24.5 GW was funeral director and embalmer
24.6 REDACTED (name) said GW lived above his business in Dartmouth
24.7 REDACTED (name) said GW had property in Portapique
24.8 REDACTED (name) talked about GW’s vehicles
24.9 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
24.10 GW bought gas
24.11 GW showed REDACTED (name) a gun on REDACTED (date?) and REDACTED (pronoun) was uncomfortable.

While there are two paragraphs that are entirely redacted, the redactions do not appear to be substantial, but seem to be related to GW’s actions before the murders.


Informant #6

[Paragraph set 25 (20-0641)] Someone who knew GW had assaulted someone in the past, and knew he had a lookalike police car, a uniform, and guns.

25. REDACTED (name) gave statement to RCMP cops
25.1 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
25.2 GW has assaulted REDACTED (name) in the past
25.3 GW is smart and paranoid
25.4 GW had a car that looked like a police car. It was REDACTED (name) who told REDACTED (pronoun) this.
25.5 GW was wealthy.
25.6 GW recently bought $800 worth of gas.
25.7 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
25.8 REDACTED (something about guns). GW showed REDACTED (name, then unredacted: a hidden compartment in the garage) where he kept a rifle. REDACTED (unredacted: the compartment was underneath the workbench) this was about eight years ago.
25.9 At Dartmouth property, REDACTED (unredacted: there is a false wall) on the right side of shed. REDACTED (name) showed REDACTED (name) this a few years ago.
25.10 REDACTED (name) said GW had a police uniform.

While there are two paragraphs that are entirely redacted, the redactions do not appear to be substantial, but seem to be related to details about GW’s properties


Informant #7

[Paragraph set 26  (20-0641)] Someone who knew GW and said that he was abusive, and who also knew that GW had police uniform and badge.

26. REDACTED (name) gave a statement to an HRP cop, saying:
26.1 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
26.2 REDACTED (name) said GW lived above dental clinic and in Portapique
26.3 Years ago GW was abusive to REDACTED (name)
26.4 GW talked about having guns
26.5 REDACTED (name) had been in warehouse and saw lots of security
26.6 GW had police cars
26.7 REDACTED (name) said GW had police uniform and badge
26.8 GW bought gas
26.9 REDACTED (name) and GW had various vehicles
26.10 ENTIRELY REDACTED (unredacted: There is a secret room in the clinic in Dartmouth.)

The redactions are not substantial. While there is one paragraph that is entirely redacted, it appears to be an introductory paragraph of personal information about the informant.


Informant #8

[Paragraph set 27 (20-0641)] A friend of GW who knew that he had an uncle in the RCMP.

27. REDACTED (name) gave statement to HRP, as follows:
27.1 REDACTED (name) was friends with GW.
27.2 GW is denturist
27.3 REDACTED (names?) have been in cabin in Portapique
27.4 GW is a millionaire and very smart
27.5 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
27.6 GW had REDACTED (unredacted: uncle) was RCMP and this REDACTED (unredacted: uncle) gave GW a uniform

While there is one redacted paragraph, it does not appear to be substantial.


Informant #9

[Paragraph set 28 (20-0641)] Someone who knew details of the various properties, and who said that GW had smuggled guns and drugs.

28. REDACTED (name) gave a statement to HRP
28.1 REDACTED (name) met GW in 2011
28.2 REDACTED (?) hasn’t seen GW in eight months.
28.3 unredacted: said that GW builds fires and burns bodies, is a sexual predator and supplies drugs in Portapique and Economy, Nova Scotia.
28.4 unredacted: is aware of all the secret hides in the building. There are two false walls in the back bathroom and two in the garage.
28.5 Garage on Portland Street has attic.
28.6 Log house in Portapique, password is REDACTED (password, and unredacted: There is a 30×30 deck and underneath is a storage room) where he kept cases of REDACTED (kind of ammunition).
28.7 There’s a safe at Portapique property
28.8 There’s a safe in the garage on Portland Street.
28.9 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
28.10 GW has REDACTED (make) rifle.
28.11 police care and uniform
28.12 REDACTED (name knew that?) GW had REDACTED (unredacted: was aware that GW had smuggled drugs and guns from Maine for years and had a stockpile of guns)
28.13 GW spoke of getting rid of bodies
28.14 GW was controlling and paranoid
28.15 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
28.16 unredacted: GW smuggled drugs from Maine and had a bag of 10,000 oxycontin and 15,000 pilaudid from a reservation in New Brunswick
28.17 GW told REDACTED (name) how to get rid of bodies; chemicals on property.
28.18 Video cameras on properties
28.19 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
28.20 REDACTED (name) provided layout of properties
28.21 GW was embalmer
28.22 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
28.23 asked about booby traps REDACTED (name) said that REDACTED (pronoun) didn’t know but police should cut off power because REDACTED (pronoun) wouldn’t put it past REDACTED (him, GW).

There are four paragraphs that are entirely redacted, but they appear to be about details of the properties, and not otherwise substantial.


Informant #10

[Paragraph set 29 (20-0641)] — An employee at Sid Sells Signs, a sign shop in Truro, who said he told GW it would be illegal to put RCMP-like stickers on his car.

Statement of REDACTED (name)
Employee of REDACTED (Sid Sells Signs)
29. REDACTED (name) gave statement to RCMP
29.1 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
29.2 REDACTED (name) heard news about GW and recognized him as customer
29.3 GW had come to REDACTED (Sid Sells Signs) on REDACTED (date) and bought vinyl
29.4 GW told REDACTED (pronoun) that he had bought an old police car at auction and wanted to do it up like a police car.
29.5 REDACTED (name) told GW that would be illegal, and GW said he knew it would be illegal.
29.6 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
29.7 REDACTED (name) said that GW came back to REDACTED (Sid Sells Signs) in October and bought more stuff. REDACTED (name) was the employee who dealt with GW.
29.8 REDACTED (name) said that REDACTED (pronoun) knew about the October purchase because REDACTED (pronoun) had looked it up today.
29.9 REDACTED (name) had an account with REDACTED (Sid Sells Signs)

Police put a lot of effort into into investigating the decals used by GW for his lookalike police cars. This might be because Peter Alan Griffon, a neighbour of GW’s Portapique property and a convicted drug dealer with suspected links to the Mexican drug cartel La Familia, was employed at the sign shop and was instrumental in procuring the decals to GW. While that connection is interesting, it doesn’t appear that Informant #10 is providing any information that would should light on the Griffon-GW relationship, so I think these redactions are not substantial.


Informant #11

[Paragraph set 30 (20-0641)] Another employee at Sid Sells Signs, who gave police the name of the employee who sold the decals to GW, and who was able to use the business computer to see exactly what GW had purchased.

REDACTED (name)
Employee at REDACTED (Sid Sells Signs)
30. REDACTED (name) gave statement to RCMP, saying:
30.1 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
30.2 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
30.3 REDACTED (name) said that REDACTED (pronoun) wasn’t present when GW bought stuff, and that REDACTED (name) was the employee who dealt with him.
30.4 REDACTED (name) said that they sold vinyl to GW REDACTED (?)
30.5 REDACTED (name) looked up what GW had bought from REDACTED (Sid Sells Signs) and he had purchased
30.5.1 blue vinyl
30.5.2 reflective
30.5.3 fire engine red vinyl
30.6 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)

As with Informant #10, I don’t think these redactions are substantial.


Informant #12

[Paragraph set 26 (20-0668)] A person who lives on Highway 4, whose residence GW visited the morning of April 19.

26. REDACTED (name) gave statement to RCMP, saying the following:
26.1 REDACTED (name) met GW eight years ago in Portapique. REDACTED (name) was with REDACTED (pronoun)
26.2 REDACTED (name) was introduced to REDACTED (name) by GW
26.3 REDACTED (name) said people liked taking with GW
26.4 In June 2019, REDACTED (name) told REDACTED (name) that REDACTED (pronoun) had been to GW’s shop and it was one of the nicest shops REDACTED (pronoun) had ever seen
26.5 REDACTED (name) said that on the night of April 18, REDACTED (name, but RCMP?) had called REDACTED (pronoun) and said there was an incident in Portapique and told REDACTED (pronoun) to keep REDACTED (pronoun) doors locked
26.6 REDACTED (name) said that REDACTED (pronoun) got up at 8am with REDACTED (name), checked social media and learn that REDACTED (?) Greg and Jamie Blair had been killed, but REDACTED (pronoun) didn’t know if that was true or not
26.7 REDACTED (name) kept checking Facebook and learned about the incident in Portapique. REDACTED (?)
26.8 REDACTED (name) told REDACTED (pronoun) that GW had a police car he was going to decal up.
26.9 Both REDACTED (names) commented that it would be a disaster if he was in a police car.
26.10 REDACTED (name) reported this to 911.
26.11 REDACTED (name) checked Facebook and saw GW was wanted
26.12 Both REDACTED (names) were upstairs at their house REDACTED (address) and 10-15 minutes after they called 911, a marked police car drove up their driveway and onto the grass to turn around.
26.13 REDACTED (name) recognized the driver as GW
26.14 REDACTED (name) called 911 again
26.15 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
26.16 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
26.17 REDACTED (name?) could hear a helicopter nearby REDACTED (?)
26.18 REDACTED (name) heard the doorbell ring and REDACTED (name?) thought GW had entered the house REDACTED (?)
26.19 REDACTED (name) heard banging on glass
26.20 REDACTED (name) could hear “come out with your hands up Gabriel, come out with your hands up”
26.21 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
26.22 REDACTED (name) said that REDACTED (pronoun) received a call from someone who told him that GW was now heading to Lower Onslow and to remain in REDACTED (pronoun) house
26.23 REDACTED (name and ?) could see GW drive up the driveway in police car, get out with a rifle. GW REDACTED (?) for a few minutes and appears REDACTED (?) and got back in car and left
26.23.1 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)

While there are four paragraphs in Informant #12’s account that are entirely redacted, the redactions appear to be related to private information about the informant, and about specifics related to GW’s behaviour. I don’t think these are otherwise substantial.


Informant #13

[Paragraph set 27 (20-0668)] A person who witnessed the murders of Heidi Stephenson and Joey Webber.

27 REDACTED (name) gave statement to RCMP, saying the following:
27.1 REDACTED (name) said REDACTED (name) hollered for REDACTED (name) to look REDACTED (?) because there was a shooting going on
27.2 REDACTED (?) bald headed guy doing the shooting
27.3 The gunfire sounded like popping. It was windy, so before REDACTED (name) called to REDACTED (pronoun) the first thing REDACTED (pronoun) thought was the siding was coming loose. Then REDACTED (pronoun) realized it was gunfire
27.4 REDACTED (name) said that REDACTED (?) the first thing REDACTED (pronoun) was the bald guy shooting and REDACTED (details of gunfire, including death)
27.5 REDACTED (pronoun) thought the bald guy was a Mountie but it seemed funny to REDACTED (pronoun) that one Mountie would be shooting another Mountie
27.6 REDACTED (pronoun)
27.7 REDACTED (name) dialed 911
27.8 A grey SUV approached. The driver saw the two Mountie cars smashed together and got out of his vehicle to help.
27.9 ENTIRELY REDACTED (presumably, details of the murder of Joey Webber)
27.10 ENTIRELY REDACTED (presumably, details of the murder of Joey Webber)
27.11 ENTIRELY REDACTED (presumably, details of the murder of Joey Webber)
27.12 ENTIRELY REDACTED (presumably, details of the murder of Joey Webber)
27.13 REDACTED (name) said REDACTED (pronoun) said he didn’t see the gun used REDACTED (?), just heard it. REDACTED (pronoun) believed it was a handgun.
27.14 Bald man set fire to RCMP car.
27.15 REDACTED (name) gives details of fire. REDACTED (pronoun) knows it was set on fire because it wasn’t smoking before but REDACTED (pronoun) didn’t actually see it set on fire
27.16 ENTIRELY REDACTED (presumably, details of the murder of Joey Webber)
27.17 Bald man drove away in SUV
27.18 Headed down Highway 224 south
27.19 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
27.20 ENTIRELY REDACTED (?)
27.21 A woman in a red car showed up. The woman saw REDACTED (details of the murder scene) and went back down the ramp to stop traffic
27.22 Both police cars were on fire

There are lots of redactions, but they mostly seem to describing the horrible murders. It’s difficult to see how these redactions could be later found to be erroneous.

The media consortium is opposing the continued redaction of the erroneous information in the ITOs. There is a hearing scheduled for next week.


The Halifax Examiner is an advertising-free, subscriber-supported news site. Your subscription makes this work possible; please subscribe.

Some people have asked that we additionally allow for one-time donations from readers, so we’ve created that opportunity, via the PayPal button below. We also accept e-transfers, cheques, and donations with your credit card; please contact iris “at” halifaxexaminer “dot” ca for details.

Thank you!




Tim Bousquet

Tim Bousquet is the editor and publisher of the Halifax Examiner. Twitter @Tim_Bousquet Mastodon

Join the Conversation

2 Comments

Only subscribers to the Halifax Examiner may comment on articles. We moderate all comments. Be respectful; whenever possible, provide links to credible documentary evidence to back up your factual claims. Please read our Commenting Policy.
Cancel reply
  1. It’s your opinion that the Crown has no business “contextualizing” the erroneous information for the public. If you were the someone who gave the erroneous information, would you want the Crown to have the erroneous information dumped in the public domain without having it put in context? I’m speculating probably not.

    #13 of Brief reads: Here the Court has evidence that information contained within the ITOs is now believed to be inaccurate. This is of no surprise: this information was obtained less than 24 hours after the shootings. Now, more than 6 months later, the investigation has progressed to the point where there is a more complete understanding of the subject matter in question.

  2. gawd Tim it looks like the RCMP is gonna keep you on the hook until Halifax Examiner is bankrupt. As the saying goes, throw the dog a bone.

    You write: “There are lots of redactions, but they mostly seem to describing the horrible murders. It’s difficult to see how these redactions could be later found to be erroneous.” It’s easy to see, if you consider that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.

    Is it known if the person who gave the police “inaccurate” and “erroneous” information did so deliberately? Is that person a she or he? What’s your guess?