I wonder if there’s a bit of misunderstanding over the content of documents recently released. The RCMP didn’t open up their investigative files to the public.
The information released is from documents referred to as ITOs (Information to Obtain means the information presented to a Judge under oath hopefully to support approval of a subpoena or search warrant). While it’s information in the hands of the RCMP, it’s not proven fact. It’s information being investigated to determine if it indeed pertains to solving the case.
At the time the ITOs were written, LE couldn’t predict the future results of a subpoena or search warrant. Perhaps it would solve the case. But by the time the media sought to unseal the ITO’s the RCMP would certainly know if the results of the subpoenas or search warrants proved significant or not. And judging by their more recent comments most of it was a ‘’not’.
I’m hoping this context might be helpful as the process is exactly the same in every investigation although the media does not publish the ITOs in every case.
JMO
Hypothetic, simple example -
Hank lives @ 18 Bull Cres and has CCTV showing the entire Cres.
LE receives a tip that Johnny @ 14 Bull Cres robbed a bank on Sept 1st, driving a red 1/2 ton.
LE must obtain a subpoena so they can obtain the Hank’s CCTV from that date to determine if Johnny was observed leaving the Cres in his red 1/2 ton. If his 1/2 ton didn’t leave the Cres, then he couldn’t have robbed the bank. But if we only read the ITO, well it says a tip reported that Johnny robbed the bank and so that’s what LE set out to investigate.
The RCMP agreed to release the new information ahead of a scheduled court hearing to review whether the information could be made public.
globalnews.ca
A spokesperson with the Nova Scotia RCMP said the police “initially sought to seal these ITOs in full, which is standard practice in sensitive investigations where the release of information could compromise the integrity – or future integrity – of the investigation.”
Portions of these redactions have been removed following the legal challenges brought forward by media organizations, Allison Gerrard said in an email Friday.
“The remaining redactions reflect ongoing concerns related to privacy and continued protection of the investigative process.”