CANADA - shooter in RCMP vehicle & uniform, 22 killed (plus perp), Portapique, NS, 18 April 2020 #2

[mcdonalds]

1214SD [Forbes] said the assault was witnessed by one of GW’s relatives, who was a good friend of hers when he lived in Portapique, and who is now in a long-term care facility, following a stroke. Two other men also watched it happen.

So I called [the relative] and I said… “would you be willing to talk to the RCMP about what happened with [GW’s partner] and the illegal weapons that [the shooter] has?” And he said, “no way, because he’s already told me he’ll kill me, because he’s already told me that he’s killed people in the United States.”

I listened to the asithappened audio (12:12 length clip)- i didn't hear this reference to the relative- are you able to provide the link for this?

 

[MistyWaters]

People in the community would have known very well the extent of the rage, his weapons, his neighborhood personality, stories of other acquaintances/business/family/associates and the run ins he had long before he went on his rampage. People talk.

There is definitely something there in the past relationships he held in the community of the Portapique. The Forbes audio clip eludes to this. The Blair son interview also eludes that there was some tensions with GW.

Just a hard time believing that GW was not known to police prior to April 18.

I wish someone with a law enforcement background might offer the definition of “known to police” because I’ve never heard it explained. Of course all of us “know” people but for a police force, what does it mean to be known to them? Do they keep files on everyone (aside from suspected terrorists) or otherwise how do police “know or not know” people, especially those without a criminal record.

Its also possible there’s an assumption a person becomes “known” to police whenever someone files a complaint against him or her? To the loosest definition, whenever police talked to somebody that could be considered “known”. But I’ve always assumed it pertained to someone with a significant criminal past or present, or ties with.

 

[Oscarjackson12]

That means they have dealt with them on numerous occasions for different non arrestable offences. That’s a simplified explanation.

 

[MistyWaters]

That means they have dealt with them on numerous occasions for different non arrestable offences. That’s a simplified explanation.

Do you have a link for this? The reason I ask is how is it recorded people are “dealt with” if no charges are laid?

An example, an officer stops someone and gives them a warning for speeding. Is that person then known to police? Then how about someone who indeed receives a speeding ticket?

In the purest sense, people are considered innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Being “known” by police IMO is indicative of known criminality, not merely an interaction otherwise a huge percentage of the population would be “known”.

 

[mcdonalds]

Do you have a link for this? The reason I ask is how is it recorded people are “dealt with” if no charges are laid?

An example, an officer stops someone and gives them a warning for speeding. Is that person then known to police? Then how about someone who indeed receives a speeding ticket?

In the purest sense, people are considered innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Being “known” by police IMO is indicative of known criminality, not merely an interaction otherwise a huge percentage of the population would be “known”.

Maybe what the issue is in the word "known" is to what the severity is and the situations of police contact with the suspect- a career criminal with multiple infractions is probably more "known" than a guy caught speeding once.

You can see this in the charged assault documents for GW- the file INCR#2001 is referenced along with the series of court registry numbers. So he was "known" at some point in his life to police if he had a file# and was charged.

Speeding tickets also have a file# and they would follow the same process in people who dispute tickets in court.

I believe all instances where an individual has an encounter with the police it is documented and a file # is assigned- regardless of the situation.

 

[Marp]

Do you have a link for this? The reason I ask is how is it recorded people are “dealt with” if no charges are laid?

An example, an officer stops someone and gives them a warning for speeding. Is that person then known to police? Then how about someone who indeed receives a speeding ticket?

In the purest sense, people are considered innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Being “known” by police IMO is indicative of known criminality, not merely an interaction otherwise a huge percentage of the population would be “known”.

Here’s a piece I found in the Toronto Star re: ‘Known to Police’ which gives at least a Toronto centric discussion of the phrase.
What does being ‘known to police’ mean in Toronto?

 

[Amoca]

From same McLeans article, this section seems to be in error, since the girlfriend was said to have stayed in the woods until 6am the following morning?:

While RCMP officers were shooting up the fire hall, unbeknownst to police, the killer was driving around in his replica cruiser through the downtown business district of Truro.

Police have not said why he went there. There is no indication he attempted to gain entry to the hospital where his common-law wife and other shooting victims were being treated.

Truro Police were notified of the shooting when they were asked to assist with a lockdown at the hospital at midnight on April 18. They put extra officers on the next morning and contacted the RCMP to offer assistance but “the RCMP thanked us for our offer but did not ask for assistance,” said spokeswoman Josee Gallant.

He would have had to pass by Truro, there's no other way to get by, in order to get to the other places on his list via the old highway. I believe he took the second Truro exit, which puts him on the old highway, scoots through Mill Brook (the indian reserve) where he was shown on video changing his coat at the gas bar in Millbrook/Hilden. Then he just drove down the old highway (#2), which locals mostly use and cops generally don't, til he got to Shubenacadie, shot Const. Morrison, fatally shot Const. Stevenson, Joey Webber, and went to Gina Goulet's house (still on old highway) Killed her, changed clothes and continued towards Elmsdale and Enfield.

 

[MistyWaters]

At around 7:00 in the recorded interview linked above, the woman talks about how GW came 'pounding' at her door one night, with his gf in tow, accusing this woman of spreading lies around town and to his gf that he was screwing around on the gf; the woman said to him, 'if the shoe fits, wear it'. She stated he then pushed his gf out the door and threatened the woman by telling her 'you're going to pay for this'. She said this was followed by a few instances of GW driving to her house, getting out of his car and just staring at her house for a half hour each time.

I'm not sure at which point all of the above occurred in relation to the other incidents she mentioned, but I would've thought that in itself might be reason enough to call police. And if she had, and since she had witnessed it first-hand, surely police would have had to follow it up with GW. And not to mention the stalking behaviour, which she said scared her. I guess I find it odd that apparently she did not report that incident?

Quoting from your post - BBM
“the woman talks about how GW came 'pounding' at her door one night, with his gf in tow, accusing this woman of spreading lies around town and to his gf that he was screwing around on the gf..”

and Maclean’s
“The violence began when the killer, a 51-year-old denturist, went into a murderous rage after an argument with his common-law wife over a video call he made with a female friend, according to a police source briefed on the matter but not authorized to discuss it...”
The Nova Scotia shooting and the mistakes the RCMP may have made - Macleans.ca

Just an observation about the inconsistency of media reports and how it’s becoming impossible to rely on that’s reported from “sources” other than by creating a theory for the moment.

Initial reports claimed the ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend were the first to be killed, suggesting a cruel, jealous rage had set this killer into a wild frenzied overdrive.

Full circle now, but odd and unexpected are insinuations regarding his infidelity, not hers. If true, I can’t even guess how his possible involvement with other women fits directly within his motive to commence killing innocent people and setting houses on fire while pretending to be a police officer.

But it does make me wonder, did he lead other women into believing he was really a cop? Was he becoming so mentally disturbed that he eventually crossed the line from reality into a fantasy world of a cop gone loco?

 

[MistyWaters]

Here’s a piece I found in the Toronto Star re: ‘Known to Police’ which gives at least a Toronto centric discussion of the phrase.
What does being ‘known to police’ mean in Toronto?

Thank you for finding that. Interesting.

This sums it up IMO —

“The term is entrenched in popular culture and the way police and some journalists communicate, the professor noted.

“It is on one hand a very convenient shorthand for describing a person, but when you start to unpack it and scrutinize it, you realize that it’s really leaving out much more than it reveals.”..”

 

[Marp]

The Forbes lived on Portapique Beach Road (source is Colcester County Permits 2013). I believe apart from the idiot's house, the only other place on that road to burn was the Zahl/Thomas house.

I’m really speculating now, but is there any chance they lived/slept at both properties? If Forbes lived on Portapique Beach Rd then that’s likely where she was staying at some point. But what about the night of the rampage?

IMO when MSM refer to ***’s “home” they are never clear which “home” in Portapique they speak of. They show us pictures and by association with text or video we assume they are showing us the home that was lived in. In the news clip I look at the room view from above of the “home”, I see motorbikes everywhere, party lights strung across the ceiling and the fake cruiser planted in the middle of the “living room” parked on a concrete floor. The exterior picture of a garage door would suggest that’s how the cruiser got in the home. When I compare the often published picture of the mock up cruiser with the picture of the bar from the news clip I see the same set of water taps and bottle of sunlight soap on the shelf. But in the overhead view, if it’s the same room, the car has been moved to a different position.

So are the interior pictures of 136 Orchard Beach or 200 Portapique Beach (which in previous WS real estate posts is listed 1 storey) and did they call both of these buildings ”home” or was one the party building. IMO from google earth shots it would be Orchard Beach pictured.


The Nova Scotia shootings began with an act of domestic abuse — and there were red flags that came before


In the news clip a burned building is shown, is it in fact one of their homes? Original reports on this thread suggested that Orchard Beach Dr near the Blair home was burned down others that the Portapique Beach Rd home was burned down and yet no one is reporting he burned down both.


Hard to tell from the video footage where that burned house was although I can imagine the river bank in the background which suggests the Portapique Beach home. I wish MSM could settle on one set of material facts, maybe even hire a plane to take some aerial shots of the scene instead of MSM (and me)speculating.

 

[Oscarjackson12]

Do you have a link for this? The reason I ask is how is it recorded people are “dealt with” if no charges are laid?

An example, an officer stops someone and gives them a warning for speeding. Is that person then known to police? Then how about someone who indeed receives a speeding ticket?

In the purest sense, people are considered innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Being “known” by police IMO is indicative of known criminality, not merely an interaction otherwise a huge percentage of the population would be “known”.

Sorry no links. Basically it can mean a lot of things. The previous assault .. calls made by neighbours, family, friends. Some of that is documented but it’s not a great thing when police know you. For example, I am certainly not known by police. I assume the majority of people here are not known.

 

[Scoobydo2]

He would have had to pass by Truro, there's no other way to get by, in order to get to the other places on his list via the old highway. I believe he took the second Truro exit, which puts him on the old highway, scoots through Mill Brook (the indian reserve) where he was shown on video changing his coat at the gas bar in Millbrook/Hilden. Then he just drove down the old highway (#2), which locals mostly use and cops generally don't, til he got to Shubenacadie, shot Const. Morrison, fatally shot Const. Stevenson, Joey Webber, and went to Gina Goulet's house (still on old highway) Killed her, changed clothes and continued towards Elmsdale and Enfield.

I totally agree with all that you said except that I believe the RCMP showed pictures of his route at the April 28 news conference, going through downtown Truro, then onto the old highway #2.

Maps - Speaking remarks: Supt. Darren Campbell - April 28, 2020 | Royal Canadian Mounted Police

 

[MistyWaters]

Sorry no links. Basically it can mean a lot of things. The previous assault .. calls made by neighbours, family, friends. Some of that is documented but it’s not a great thing when police know you. For example, I am certainly not known by police. I assume the majority of people here are not known.

According to the link Marp posted just above, prior to the ‘90s police would just spell out any prior criminal history. But the reference of “known to police” began because “In the ‘90s, police were more restrictive with releasing information on a person’s criminal history, and they and the media began using known to police more often.”

The RCMP have what’s called “RCMP National Repository of Criminal Records” and GW’s name apparently doesn’t appear if he was given a conditional discharge for the 2001 assault charge.

Dissemination of Criminal Record Information policy | Royal Canadian Mounted Police

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/nova-scotia-shooting-suspect-criminal-record-1.5541176

 

[mcdonalds]

We still don't know much about Debert, the 2900 block Highway 4 or the gunman's connection with Hunter Road yet.
An update from police would be nice.

 

[mcdonalds]

Question- does anyone recall an article stating that a "Wortman" was a current roster police officer- but not the GW that was impersonating the police officer? I am trying to locate the article/mention.

 

[Tilly23]

Question- does anyone recall an article stating that a "Wortman" was a current roster police officer- but not the GW that was impersonating the police officer? I am trying to locate the article/mention.

Could it have been this one, mcdonalds?
Police say N.S. RCMP officer with same last name as Mountie-impersonating killer is no relation

 

[mcdonalds]

Could it have been this one, mcdonalds?
Police say N.S. RCMP officer with same last name as Mountie-impersonating killer is no relation

Yes thank you Tilly23.

Recognizing that the same last name is pure coincidental- but in the same province and general region- is it possible that GW somehow came to know this and actually used it to his advantage without anyone even knowing?

I have no doubt that the real CNST. Wortman had no clue who GW was.

But GW was obsessed enough to build a detailed replica car - was he detailed enough to have replica police ID and badge #?

If anyone questioned him- a badge# and ID Could be provided and verified- the real CNST. Wortman” was definitely coming back verifiably legit.

april 23 Twitter post

Halifax_Police (@HfxRegPolice) on Twitter

 

[NBKevadian]

Also from one of the last two Video Press Conferences it was mentioned GW had two relatives who were retired RCMP officers but who were believed not to have aided in the procurement of police equipment or paraphernalia.

 

[deugirtni]

Yes thank you Tilly23.

Recognizing that the same last name is pure coincidental- but in the same province and general region- is it possible that GW somehow came to know this and actually used it to his advantage without anyone even knowing?

I have no doubt that the real CNST. Wortman had no clue who GW was.

But GW was obsessed enough to build a detailed replica car - was he detailed enough to have replica police ID and badge #?

If anyone questioned him- a badge# and ID Could be provided and verified- the real CNST. Wortman” was definitely coming back verifiably legit.

april 23 Twitter post

Halifax_Police (@HfxRegPolice) on Twitter

I wonder if this same-name situation could have had anything to do with the police firing shots at the firehall, which SIRT is looking into, where some officers thought the perp was someone else, for some reason?

 

[deugirtni]

Do you have a link for this? The reason I ask is how is it recorded people are “dealt with” if no charges are laid?

An example, an officer stops someone and gives them a warning for speeding. Is that person then known to police? Then how about someone who indeed receives a speeding ticket?

In the purest sense, people are considered innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Being “known” by police IMO is indicative of known criminality, not merely an interaction otherwise a huge percentage of the population would be “known”.

Is this conversation about 'known to police' happening because RCMP had said that GW hadn't been known to police prior to this event? Just wondering? Anyway, that seems like a very unfair term to be using.. hopefully generally used by the press as opposed to by police, since it could mean SO many things. I'm thinking that since it isn't a strictly predefined term, it could and would have different meanings for different police forces. With small towns like Portapique, it would make it even more likely that perhaps many of its residents might be 'known' to police, for one reason or another. A mere phonecall to police to report something results in police asking for identity, at least in my experience - and does such a call remain in a police database somewhere to be forever easily accessed if/when perhaps needed?

Canadians stunned to learn they have police records, despite never being found guilty

This one below is from the UK, however perhaps it might be relevant in Canada as well:

Police admit keeping records on people who report crimes