I am an idiot for not watching the video prior to commenting.I did. But it's a bit misleading. The driver didn't drive into Portapique because it was closed off, didn't go up all the way to Wentworth, and condensed some footage, because rural NS is a huge amount of trees, pastures, barns, it get's boring. I'm from here, and a couple times thought "How did it get so built up there?"
Absolutely agree with you there. Even as a reasonably close "neighbour" in the next county, I know almost nothing too. I stay up til dawn and keep my 22 loaded, which concerns me. We've never locked a door in our entire lives, neither have my neighbours, but with no details, our brains just insist on trying to put this together, and trying to understand it in a way no one except the shooter will ever know. And we'll never know because he's dead. But NS as a small tight-knit province, is injured. Our collective feeling of being ok, is gone. If we had more knowledge, we'd feel better.Yes I remember the earlier video. No worries......just wish answers were forthcoming. I did read there were some legal challenges ongoing right now regarding redactions in what has been released. I saw the Crown wanted to seal some things permanently, and to deny the release of other info such as whether victims died of fire or gunshots. They say that is out of respect to the victims families, but I am not sure on that one. I am not seeking gory details, and don't believe knowing the manner of the killing violates privacy. I might be wrong though........
Review of mass shooting in Nova Scotia to be conducted by three-person panel - HalifaxToday.ca
I just read this......and am left wondering about this whole mess. A review held behind closed doors? Witnesses not required to be under oath? Information collected to be held as confidential?
If the families of victims wanted an open discussion about these events, they are not getting it. At first glance, this appears to be the gov't giving in to calls for an inquiry, while controlling the narrative well in advance. This gives the illusion of "doing something" while accomplishing nothing. (Yes, I realised I just pre-judged the outcome).
I do understand that in a matter such as this, emotions will run high and be very raw. Perhaps the time line of over a year from now is an appropriate manner of acquiring facts without the emotional attachment. But what does that do for the families today who still await answers or receive human remains in returned vehicles? Where is all that addressed? Where are the answers for those people today?
I think the writer of that obit was unfamiliar with the case , and/or, they are bad at writing.One of my brothers pointed this out to me which might mean something.....or nothing, but I missed it completely. In the obit for Sean Mcleod (Sean Andrew Mcleod | Obituaries | The Chronicle Herald) it states he was
Predeceased by his partner, Alanna Jenkins.
It was my understanding they were shot, the house burned and then their neighbour Tom Bagley shot coming to help when he saw flames. It is a minor detail perhaps but how was it determined Alanna Jenkins "predeceased" Sean Mcleod? I had no answer for that detail, and am not sure if, in the absence of updates, this one word has assumed more importance than it needs.
I think the writer of that obit was unfamiliar with the case , and/or, they are bad at writing.
I listened to this as well. The minister said we can get to the truth and do it in a more efficient way so as to not put the families through any more trauma. Quickly put in her place to say the families want the truth and will wait for as long as it takes.Fascinating to listen to, thank you for the link. I posted a few quotes below from around the 15-17 minute mark.
"the panel can decide to make these hearings public ....if they so choose" The extent of what info is released between a review and an inquiry is like night and day...and at the whims of a small number of people
"but that is not what the families want they want answers and they want public answers" The interviewer kept coming back to this! The minister kept saying the families want answers, but the interviewer kept saying saying yes, thru an inquiry not a review. Amazing how it is presented as doing what the families want, when it is not.
"justice minister was asked yesterday who exactly had asked for a review, he responded, no one. so again why have you ignored all the families" That was an amazing question to ask the minister. It was not denied, just deflected.
I am not an expert in the nuances between the various methods for getting to the bottom of this, but off the top of my head, if I want "the truth", I want to have sworn testimony, ability to compel people to testify, and public accessibility. If you return a vehicle with human remains in it, or arrange it so family members get "news" from the media, not the police, please do not try to buy me off with statements of respecting families and being sensitive to them.
Stepping down from my soapbox now............
I honestly don't mean to victim shame.
Amoca, I did not see any "shaming" in what you wrote. But, if I was the "ex" I'd probably keep a low profile at this point. For some she will be a lightning rod for their anger. I do believe many will also relegate her to second class victim status because she had been with him for so long. Who would want to be in her shoes right now?
Having said that I do understand what you wrote and have felt the same......that some of his victims were, in his warped mind, perceived to be candidates for sheltering her. If it is true, imagine how awful you would feel. Even if it is not true, imagine how awful she feels having been with him and seeing what unfolded. Guilt by association in many people's eyes. Even if she tells all she knows (and there is no reason to suggest she is not doing that behind the scenes right now), some will view it as trying to clear her conscience as a form of absolution. She is in a no win situation.
We don't need to see her, her face could be blacked out. She doesn't even need to speak, just write the words. The people from Portapique already know who she is, so hiding her face is perfectly fine, maintains her anonymity to the rest of NS (and the world) while providing answers. She CAN help the families, and it seems she either chooses not to, or has been told not to. I know she feels guilty. She's guilty of staying with her abuser for almost 20 years, while STILL involving her neighbours (like Brenda whose other name escapes me, who spoke about the shooter's spouse being hit and choked (and Brenda then moved away) requesting help, then going directly back to the abuser. I was abused too, but I left and NEVER went back. You have to know when enough is enough. Living in a gilded cage, is still living in a cage.Yeah I agree, she’s really in a no-win situation. I think she’s better off communicating directly with the victim’s families when she’s ready and if she chooses, rather than going public. Otherwise it’s guaranteed her every word and facial expression will be critiqued to the upteenth degree, along with a whole lot of the could’ve/should’ve sort of judgement which always follows. The clock can’t be turned back, unfortunately.
It’s probably far to soon for her to even understand what happened.
The only person who has all the answers is the killer who took them to the grave.
JMO