CANADA - shooter in RCMP vehicle & uniform, 22 killed (plus perp), Portapique, NS, 18 April 2020 #3

[Lexiintoronto]

Elizabeth McMillan@elizmcmillan
“The case of Lisa Banfield, who is charged with providing ammunition to her spouse, the man responsible for the NS mass shooting, has been adjourned until March 30. Her lawyer says they haven't received full disclosure from the Crown so won't be able to enter a plea today”
https://twitter.com/elizmcmillan/status/1369281498600325120?s=20


According to the tweet thread above, Banfield’s lawyer received a USB from the Crown with the documents, but couldn’t retrieve the files. Banfield’s brother and brother-in-law were originally charged together with her, but their cases are proceeding separately.

 

[MistyWaters]

“...snipped to reply...

So, as far as we know right now, LB didn’t volunteer to police that she purchased the ammunition for the killer. They found out as a result of examining her bank records. Which may explain why it took so long for them to lay charges against her—correct me if I’m wrong, please.

That was my impression too. Because if she didn’t come clean, it appears to me she’s throwing her brother and brother-in-law (if that’s who’s referred to as the sister’s boyfriend) under the bus for their participation in providing ammunition as well, by declaring GW had showed his dangerous illegal weapons to both of them. They can’t claim they didn’t know why they were buying it, or for whom.

“The killer’s spouse also told police he showed his guns to people, including her brother and her sister’s boyfriend.”
Nova Scotia mass shooter showed off rifle for "movie" he planned to make, court docs show - 680 NEWS

 

[deugirtni]

I don’t want to muddy the water because I’m not sharp on the details, but weren’t the friends in Maine interviewed and they confirmed speaking with the killer and his spouse that night?

I don't remember (personally) reading any confirmation of that.. because I had actually been hoping for some clarification, because it seemed such a bizarre thing to get all 'upset' about, to the point LB had to start something, and leave. Now we find out the GW did in fact blame LB for ruining their anniversary. It had seemed really odd to me, given LB's 20 year experience with GW as an abuser and drinker, that she might start something, especially when he'd been drinking, when from my life's experience, it seems that women who've lived with abusers and/or drinkers seem to tend to, rather, walk on eggshells around the man. There were only the two facetime parties present for that.. one party of which one of them is dead, the other is whose word we're to take; and the other party is in the USA, IIRC. I had been hoping to hear from them, either by interview or by way of documents, their version of events that night, and what exactly made it get all crazy for LB to walk out. There are so many things now in her own reports that just don't make sense, or at least, if they do make sense, they're not putting her in a good light in any way at all. imo.

 

[MistyWaters]

Thank you for finding and posting that.

I have a million questions as well. I don’t know whether to look at the information closely in this case or let it go.

Yeah I know what you mean. That’s the problem with ITOs - they were written at the beginning of the investigation with information that’s most critical always redacted. I don’t think it’s going to answer many questions, unfortunately.

 

[deugirtni]

The report in the newspaper which Lexi posted above said in a couple of different spots that LB says she had gone to bed naked.. which brings questions in itself, considering she was so upset and found that he was mad at her, or whatever.. but she then goes on to say he dragged her out of bed and whatever, but no mention of her ever getting dressed or taking the time to put the shoes on which she later says he removed from her feet so she couldn't run away.

Did anyone also notice the question mark (by the author of the newspaper report)? Another discrepancy... LB had said she had run to a truck but that the light had come on, so it made her afraid he'd notice, so she didn't stay there, and next thing you know she's talking about leaving the truck after having been in it, or something to that effect?

 

[MistyWaters]

I am of the same mind. For months I was told there was a facetime call which was the catalyst for what followed. Then the documents say no evidence was found. So, does that mean it did not happen or that evidence was found later, after this was written? It could be as simple as that.....or......and that leads you down a rabbit hole where I don't want to go. I have read these documents but wonder how much more there is to the story. Maybe it is true, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I don’t think it’s intended anyone be led down a rabbit hole. What’s been released isn’t really a full police file or update. ITOs are written by LE to support a search warrant or production order of some sort, presented to a judge for approval. LE is required to “prove” why the warrant is justified so they summarize certain background information pertaining to the warrant, and that’s what has just been released.

When you say we’ve been told there was a facetime call, iirc the source was the ITOs as well, comments summarized during LB’s interview with police. So it’d make sense to me LE wouldn’t just take anyone’s word this facetime call occurred and the computer would’ve been destroyed in their house that burned to the ground. So it wouldn’t be really surprising LE would have “no evidence” of the facetime call until such time as internet records were obtained from the service provider, which requires a production order to obtain. That’s the missing piece of information that would’ve been obtained later so we can’t yet conclude the facetime call didn’t occur.

The release of multiple ITOs by the Courts to the media appear not to be in perfect chronological order, which makes the information appear even more confusing.

JMO

 

[deugirtni]

Here is the portion with the question mark put in there by...... come to think of it, was it put there by the newspaper person reporting it, or by the police who were summarizing? That part BBM

While GW was collecting the guns, Banfield managed to escape the car and run out into the woods. She found a truck and thought to hide in it, but when she opened the door the overhead light came on and she feared that GW would see it and learn where she was, so she kept running. “She believed that she had a puffy jacket on and threw it in the woods hoping that police would find it.”

The narrative continues: “Lisa Banfield heard shots and thought that [GW] might blow up the truck and she left that hiding spot [?] and eventually came across a tree with an exposed root system and hid inside the cavity.”
--------
Also, she found a tree with an exposed root system.. but does that mean it also had a cavity? And wouldn't a person become dirty and cold on a near freezing night after spending the night in such a 'cavity'? But yet Joudry had said she wasn't dirty and also didn't seem like she was cold, as would be expected if one had spent the night in the outdoors on that night. So many discrepancies.

 

[MistyWaters]

Here is the portion with the question mark put in there by...... come to think of it, was it put there by the newspaper person reporting it, or by the police who were summarizing? That part BBM

While GW was collecting the guns, Banfield managed to escape the car and run out into the woods. She found a truck and thought to hide in it, but when she opened the door the overhead light came on and she feared that GW would see it and learn where she was, so she kept running. “She believed that she had a puffy jacket on and threw it in the woods hoping that police would find it.”

The narrative continues: “Lisa Banfield heard shots and thought that [GW] might blow up the truck and she left that hiding spot [?] and eventually came across a tree with an exposed root system and hid inside the cavity.”
--------
Also, she found a tree with an exposed root system.. but does that mean it also had a cavity? And wouldn't a person become dirty and cold on a near freezing night after spending the night in such a 'cavity'? But yet Joudry had said she wasn't dirty and also didn't seem like she was cold, as would be expected if one had spent the night in the outdoors on that night. So many discrepancies.

I agree, quite odd. I’d assume her doctor didn’t allow LE to interview her extensively, nor interrogate her at the onset as she was initially hospitalized regarding her mental health iirc. It appears LE simply allowed her to tell her story during those early days, allowing any discrepancies to manifest themselves at that point in time.

 

[deugirtni]

And why would LB's first thought be that her boyfriend's intention was to kill people other than her? I can see how she would fear he was going to burn down his second clinic, since he seemed to have already set his/their 'cottage' on fire.. but his anger, as far as we've been told, was directed solely at LB at that point. Which people/couple lived in Dartmouth? Why would she think he would set out to kill them?

GW marched her back towards the warehouse, and Banfield started screaming and trying to kick him. GW told her they were going to go to Dartmouth, and she presumed he intended to burn down their Portland Street residence and business. He also said they were going to the house of a couple who lived in the Dartmouth area, and “she believed it was to kill [them].”

 

[MistyWaters]

And why would LB's first thought be that her boyfriend's intention was to kill people other than her? I can see how she would fear he was going to burn down his second clinic, since he seemed to have already set his/their 'cottage' on fire.. but his anger, as far as we've been told, was directed solely at LB at that point. Which people/couple lived in Dartmouth? Why would she think he would set out to kill them?

GW marched her back towards the warehouse, and Banfield started screaming and trying to kick him. GW told her they were going to go to Dartmouth, and she presumed he intended to burn down their Portland Street residence and business. He also said they were going to the house of a couple who lived in the Dartmouth area, and “she believed it was to kill [them].”

I suppose it’s possible GW made threats to the safety of others in the past if she didn’t comply with what he asked. Aside from domestic abuse, the relationship between the two seemed so dysfunctional it defies logic. But there’s also the subject of “grievance collector” and GWs conflict with other people, another possible motive that’s been mentioned.

She also said this -

“Lisa Banfield told police she felt "guilty" after escaping the gunman the night of April 18, saying she was worried he would try to find her and kill people along the way. She said she questioned whether people would have died if she hadn't run away.”
Common-law partner tells police she felt 'guilty' about escaping N.S. shooter

 

[MistyWaters]

At one point in the statements, and please forgive me I don't have the reference at hand since that was a long video, but it says he told her to go back into the cottage to retrieve a gun. She did. It seems odd she did not use it to secure her escape. When she squeezed thru the partition in the police car she crawled over a bunch of guns on the front seat and failed to take one to protect herself. Again that seems strange. It says he tied her hands with a bathrobe belt, and also got a handcuff on one hand. Joudrey did not mention the handcuff, so how did she remove that? This is not said to question what she went thru, but it does raise questions.
Some say the discrepancies are due to her statements being in a hugely emotion state, which makes sense. On the other hand, some claim it shows she was complicit. All I know is key pieces of this puzzle are missing and what I "know" as fact may be entirely wrong.

I’d be doubtful she was complicit even though her story has huge gaps.

We know enough about GWs violent tendencies, his paranoia, his belief in wacky conspiracy theories, his fixation on weapons, his collection of police paraphernalia, the creating of his replica police car, his confrontational personality - I don’t think he needed anyone to push his buttons.

JMO

 

[deugirtni]

I’d be doubtful she was complicit even though her story has huge gaps.

We know enough about GWs violent tendencies, his paranoia, his belief in wacky conspiracy theories, his fixation on weapons, his collection of police paraphernalia, the creating of his replica police car, his confrontational personality - I don’t think he needed anyone to push his buttons.

JMO

I doubt if she was complicit either, but yet new questions continue to arise in regard to LB with the more we find out. LB did push his buttons on that night of their anniversary celebration at least, when she got all upset and angry and 'ended the facetime conversation' with their friends and walked out on him, because of something their friend had said. Not to excuse his reaction, but she more than anyone else in the world, knew what he was like, so why push his buttons when he was perfectly capable of coming up with his own pushing button mechanism. I wonder what she was thinking on the day they went to visit all of those different places.. did she ever wonder why they had gone to those particular places? She has been charged with purchasing ammunition for him.. what other of his weird oddities did she 'enable'?

 

[MistyWaters]

I doubt if she was complicit either, but yet new questions continue to arise in regard to LB with the more we find out. LB did push his buttons on that night of their anniversary celebration at least, when she got all upset and angry and 'ended the facetime conversation' with their friends and walked out on him, because of something their friend had said. Not to excuse his reaction, but she more than anyone else in the world, knew what he was like, so why push his buttons when he was perfectly capable of coming up with his own pushing button mechanism. I wonder what she was thinking on the day they went to visit all of those different places.. did she ever wonder why they had gone to those particular places? She has been charged with purchasing ammunition for him.. what other of his weird oddities did she 'enable'?

By her not “pushing his buttons” I was referring to absolutely nothing indicates she intentionally motivated to embark on a killing spree. It was not her fault regardless of what went on between the two that evening even though it’s clear their relationship was extremely dysfunctional.

A common element of domestic abuse is indeed “look what you made me do!”. Surely we don’t want to take this discussion toward that same direction.

He was alone, he pulled the trigger time and time again.

 

[deugirtni]

To me, it does beg the question of 'where was she' for all those hours, considering the report from Joudry.

 

[MistyWaters]

To me, it does beg the question of 'where was she' for all those hours, considering the report from Joudry.

The only information we really know is what she told LE in those initial interviews, what wasn’t redacted in the ITOs to support production orders or search warrants. This was sort of what I meant when I earlier wrote it can’t be assumed the documents recently released represent a final police investigative report. Due to the pending Public Inquiry it appears the RCMP won’t be releasing a final report, instead the results of their investigation will be revealed during that inquiry. So hopefully, that’s when questions will be answered.

 

[MistyWaters]

Oddly, LBs attorney is attempting to use the redactions to her clients benefit regarding the ammunition purchase, undermining her right to a fair trial. Maybe she did admit it?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova...ss-shooting-portapique-spouse-trial-1.5932291
“A lawyer representing the spouse of the man who murdered 22 people in and around Portapique, N.S., last year said Monday her client's right to a fair trial could be jeopardized if portions of a redacted document are unsealed.

Lisa Banfield is among three people charged with unlawfully transferring ammunition to the gunman in the month before his rampage — but police have said she and the others had no prior knowledge of the gunman's actions.

The document in question is a police application to obtain a search warrant for their investigation into the killings on April 18 to 19, 2020.

Banfield's lawyer, Jessica Zita, told provincial court Judge Laurie Halfpenny MacQuarrie that a redacted portion of the document in question includes key details about the Crown's case against her client, the release of which would undermine her right to a fair trial...”....”

 

[MistyWaters]

The Inquiry, moving along slowly. I hope none of the families were led to believe this would be a swift process. Elsewhere it’s reported the final report is anticipated to be issued Nov 2022. I’d think this also puts rulings regarding any pending civil suits in limbo also, as until the inquiry is complete, facts are unknown.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova...ss-shooting-portapique-spouse-trial-1.5932291
“The independent public inquiry into the mass shooting in Nova Scotia that claimed 22 lives last spring is now accepting applications from potential participants......

.....The federal-provincial inquiry will investigate the causes, context and circumstances that led to the shootings and then draft recommendations to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again. The inquiry is essentially a fact-finding process that will not lay blame or determine criminal or civil liability.

The commission's updated website includes a short video that features interviews with the three commissioners leading the inquiry. In the video, commissioner Michael MacDonald -- the former chief justice of Nova Scotia -- explains the main tasks for the inquiry.

"A team has been assembled that will get to the bottom of this," MacDonald says.

"The team will bring to bear expertise and experience to find out what happened in those horrible 13 hours -- frame by frame, hour by hour -- and to find out why it happened and how it will be prevented in the future.".....”

 

[newguy123]

I am not trying to stir the pot here, but this is something I find interesting. LB and two others are charged with unlawfully transferring ammunition to the shooter. The police have stated that she (and the other two accused) had no knowledge of his intentions. That is probably true. But, how did the police arrive at that conclusion? Because the three accused said so? I'd like to know how that detail is now "fact".
I am not trying to dump on any of the 3 accused by any means, but I am curious as to how their denial is now "fact". Again, there must be info the public is not aware of guiding this process.

 

[MistyWaters]

I am not trying to stir the pot here, but this is something I find interesting. LB and two others are charged with unlawfully transferring ammunition to the shooter. The police have stated that she (and the other two accused) had no knowledge of his intentions. That is probably true. But, how did the police arrive at that conclusion? Because the three accused said so? I'd like to know how that detail is now "fact".
I am not trying to dump on any of the 3 accused by any means, but I am curious as to how their denial is now "fact". Again, there must be info the public is not aware of guiding this process.

I don’t know but it would seem unlikely any of the 3 knowingly provided GW with ammunition so he could go on a lone shooting spree decked out in his fake police cruiser and uniform. What would that accomplish other than GW would either be sent to prison or shot dead, as did happen?

However I wouldn’t rule out the possibility all of them believed in the same crazy conspiracy theory as GW, so they thought they all required a stockpile of ammunition to protect themselves from whatever supposed apocalypse type scenario the government was about to inflict. Birds of a feather flock together and all that....

 

[Alethea]

I am not trying to stir the pot here, but this is something I find interesting. LB and two others are charged with unlawfully transferring ammunition to the shooter. The police have stated that she (and the other two accused) had no knowledge of his intentions. That is probably true. But, how did the police arrive at that conclusion? Because the three accused said so? I'd like to know how that detail is now "fact".
I am not trying to dump on any of the 3 accused by any means, but I am curious as to how their denial is now "fact". Again, there must be info the public is not aware of guiding this process.

I think LE likely looked at the electronic communications of the parties, interviews with witnesses, and couldn’t conclusively establish that they knew what he was planning or they were actively involved. It may be they just don’t have evidence of it so they don’t believe it. You’d think LB’s brother wouldn’t intentionally help him if he thought it would put his sister at risk?

I do think the story is weird where he drove her around all the places he was planning to attack. That seems really odd and I do wonder if he made any reference or hint to what was to come.