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

[otto]

When I read the quote "It's done" my first thought was of Macbeth.
I have wondered about the jacket incident too. One statement says she hid in a vehicle briefly but was afraid the dome light would give away her position in the dark, so she fled, then dropped the jacket for the police to find. However, if she was afraid he was looking for her, it could also have left a trail for him to follow.
But of course, I have the luxury of questioning this from a distance.

I'm curious what she means by the dome light in the car giving away her location. Wouldn't that be turned off if the doors were closed?

Imagine being outside over night for six or more hours in near freezing Canadian temperatures with neither shoes nor coat. I would expect her to be numb, shivering and having difficulty moving and speaking, but it sounds like she was quite boisterous and not at all chilled. I can understand why the first person she met doubted that she spent the night in the dense bush.

"She reportedly emerged at daybreak the next morning at the home of neighbour Leon Joudrey.

Joudrey has since stated publicly that she was “worked up and hysterical a bit” but that it didn’t look to him like she had spent the night in the woods.

He says that she arrived at his door shoeless and dressed in “black spandex” but not showing any obvious physical signs you would expect for someone who had spent the night hiding in the dense brush in the area.

“She might have been somewhere but she wasn’t in the woods all night from what I saw,” Joudrey said in a recent interview."
​

Nova Scotia mass shooting stirs more RCMP contradictions

 

[newguy123]

I read the dome light concern to be that if he had seen it from distance he'd know exactly where she was, even when it went out.
Conversely, why not leave the door open to lure him into looking for you there while you go the other way..........

 

[otto]

I read the dome light concern to be that if he had seen it from distance he'd know exactly where she was, even when it went out.
Conversely, why not leave the door open to lure him into looking for you there while you go the other way..........

There's also the other story that he put a handcuff on one hand and locked her in the car, so she kicked out the window and ran away. If that's true, then he knew she was in the car so the dome light is irrelevant.

 

[newguy123]

From what was just released, after he took her shoes/footwear from her as they walked from the cottage to the warehouse, she attempted to run away. He shot at her feet to keep her moving. When they got to the warehouse he shot the firearm again and put her in back of police car. (None of these shots appear to have been reported via 911).
While she was in the back of the cruiser, he went upstairs in the warehouse. She used that time to kick at the windows, which did not break. She did manage to escape via the partition between the front and back seats. She then escaped but noted several firearms on the front seat.
What makes no sense to me is that she reported he sent her back to the cottage to get a gun earlier, which she did. Now, fearing for her life, she passes right by several guns on her flight. I would think she would want to grab one to protect herself.

Once he saw she was gone, it is reasonable to expect him to look for her. If I remember correctly, she originally did hide in a vehicle but when the light came on, she thought it would be a beacon for him to find her. It is a puzzle to me however that he was noted to be paranoid about safety, had security cameras etc. Yet, cars parked at the warehouse, well away from the residence, were left unlocked?

 

[otto]

From what was just released, after he took her shoes/footwear from her as they walked from the cottage to the warehouse, she attempted to run away. He shot at her feet to keep her moving. When they got to the warehouse he shot the firearm again and put her in back of police car. (None of these shots appear to have been reported via 911).

While she was in the back of the cruiser, he went upstairs in the warehouse. She used that time to kick at the windows, which did not break. She did manage to escape via the partition between the front and back seats. She then escaped but noted several firearms on the front seat.

What makes no sense to me is that she reported he sent her back to the cottage to get a gun earlier, which she did. Now, fearing for her life, she passes right by several guns on her flight. I would think she would want to grab one to protect herself.

Once he saw she was gone, it is reasonable to expect him to look for her. If I remember correctly, she originally did hide in a vehicle but when the light came on, she thought it would be a beacon for him to find her. It is a puzzle to me however that he was noted to be paranoid about safety, had security cameras etc. Yet, cars parked at the warehouse, well away from the residence, were left unlocked?

For me, it is the little things in her story that lead me to believe the story is self serving.

If it was near freezing throughout the night and she was wearing spandex leggings, no shoes, no coat in the dense bush, it would have left her shivering when finally emerging in the cold morning. No 52 year old woman is going to be boisterous and "hysterical" after a trauma that happened 6-8 hours, and many gunshots and house fires, earlier. I know that everyone reacts differently to trauma, but most in their 50s react the same to several hours in freezing temperatures after a severe trauma.

Was the "warehouse" the place where people partied and was it owned by Wortman? I was under the impression that the party was down the road at someone else's property. Now I'm not sure.

So ... she was at the party, went home, returned to the party to apologize, went home again, went to bed, then he came home, hauled her out of bed, tied her up, abused her, told her to get a gun, led her back to the warehouse, put her in a car where there were guns, where she was afraid she might be discovered because of the dome light, so she left the car, ran to the dense bush, dropped her coat to indicate her direction for police but not for the man who was chasing her and who has all the tools of the police?

"Initially, the 52-year-old woman left the large garage on Orchard Beach Road, that police refer to as the warehouse, but her statement said she returned to apologize and found Wortman mad. At that point, she returned to their cottage on Portapique Beach Road and went to bed.
....

The gunman had adapted one of four decommissioned cruisers he owned with police gear that included roof lights, a bar on the front bumper and a divider that separated the front and back seats. Banfield told police she was able to pry open a window in the divider, and ran into the woods while her partner was upstairs in the garage."
​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova...ngs-lisa-banfield-police-statements-1.5911199

​

 

[MistyWaters]

For me, it is the little things in her story that lead me to believe the story is self serving.

If it was near freezing throughout the night and she was wearing spandex leggings, no shoes, no coat in the dense bush, it would have left her shivering when finally emerging in the cold morning. No 52 year old woman is going to be boisterous and "hysterical" after a trauma that happened 6-8 hours, and many gunshots and house fires, earlier. I know that everyone reacts differently to trauma, but most in their 50s react the same to several hours in freezing temperatures after a severe trauma.

Was the "warehouse" the place where people partied and was it owned by Wortman? I was under the impression that the party was down the road at someone else's property. Now I'm not sure.

So ... she was at the party, went home, returned to the party to apologize, went home again, went to bed, then he came home, hauled her out of bed, tied her up, abused her, told her to get a gun, led her back to the warehouse, put her in a car where there were guns, where she was afraid she might be discovered because of the dome light, so she left the car, ran to the dense bush, dropped her coat to indicate her direction for police but not for the man who was chasing her and who has all the tools of the police?

"Initially, the 52-year-old woman left the large garage on Orchard Beach Road, that police refer to as the warehouse, but her statement said she returned to apologize and found Wortman mad. At that point, she returned to their cottage on Portapique Beach Road and went to bed.
....

The gunman had adapted one of four decommissioned cruisers he owned with police gear that included roof lights, a bar on the front bumper and a divider that separated the front and back seats. Banfield told police she was able to pry open a window in the divider, and ran into the woods while her partner was upstairs in the garage."
​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova...ngs-lisa-banfield-police-statements-1.5911199

​

That the two had been at a party reportedly came from an unnamed source very early on, never to be mentioned again so I’m not sure it’s true. I recall MSM also reported the killer’s ex and her boyfriend were the first two victims but that can’t be true either. Often in the rush to get a breaking news story out opinions lead toward being reported as fact, never to be repeated again.

 

[newguy123]

I think the story is a loose combination of two stories. The "party" for GW and LB was a video call to friends and they had drinks and chatted at the warehouse where he had a bar. The Blairs apparently had Leon Joudrey and someone else to a steak dinner but ate socially distanced in their garage that night. Leon was there since he'd been cutting wood and clearing brush that day for them.
At one point I heard phrases like "party" for GW/LB and "gathering" at the Blairs, but, they were separate events and very small anyway. Not a gathering for a "normal" party.

 

[MistyWaters]

I think the story is a loose combination of two stories. The "party" for GW and LB was a video call to friends and they had drinks and chatted at the warehouse where he had a bar. The Blairs apparently had Leon Joudrey and someone else to a steak dinner but ate socially distanced in their garage that night. Leon was there since he'd been cutting wood and clearing brush that day for them.
At one point I heard phrases like "party" for GW/LB and "gathering" at the Blairs, but, they were separate events and very small anyway. Not a gathering for a "normal" party.

I was just reading this, the reference to “a party” is quite unusual.

Court documents says mass shooter's spouse was beaten, begged for life before escape - HalifaxToday.ca
“According to Banfield's account, an argument started during an evening party to celebrate their 19th anniversary at the "warehouse," one of the buildings the gunman owned in Portapique, N.S. During a FaceTime call to discuss holding a "commitment ceremony" for their 20th anniversary, a friend had suggested "don't do it," the witness statement says.

Banfield said in the statement she became upset and said she was leaving the party, and her partner became angry that she was leaving. Banfield told the officer she felt sorry and returned to apologize, but Wortman was "already mad," and she continued back to their cottage in Portapique....”

 

[newguy123]

I read thru that link to HalifaxToday, and this is something which bothers me with regard to the 3 people charged with acquiring ammunition for the shooter.

However, police have noted, she and others had "no prior knowledge of the gunman's actions.''

The article states as a fact that the 3 who are charged had no prior knowledge of the shooters intentions. That might be true, but how was it determined that it was a "fact"? Because they said so? Anyone in that position would be very tempted to lie or at least minimise their involvement. That is human nature.

If the law truly is reason free from passion as Aristotle said, then I'd like to know how it was proven no prior knowledge was held by those three charged. If I wrote the article I would phrase it " those charged have claimed no prior knowledge...." It just seems odd that the people charged are cleared of intent so easily.

 

[MistyWaters]

I think the story is a loose combination of two stories. The "party" for GW and LB was a video call to friends and they had drinks and chatted at the warehouse where he had a bar. The Blairs apparently had Leon Joudrey and someone else to a steak dinner but ate socially distanced in their garage that night. Leon was there since he'd been cutting wood and clearing brush that day for them.
At one point I heard phrases like "party" for GW/LB and "gathering" at the Blairs, but, they were separate events and very small anyway. Not a gathering for a "normal" party.

It is confusing indeed. Maybe I’m just not up to date on facetime “partying”.

 

[otto]

I read thru that link to HalifaxToday, and this is something which bothers me with regard to the 3 people charged with acquiring ammunition for the shooter.

However, police have noted, she and others had "no prior knowledge of the gunman's actions.''

The article states as a fact that the 3 who are charged had no prior knowledge of the shooters intentions. That might be true, but how was it determined that it was a "fact"? Because they said so? Anyone in that position would be very tempted to lie or at least minimise their involvement. That is human nature.

If the law truly is reason free from passion as Aristotle said, then I'd like to know how it was proven no prior knowledge was held by those three charged. If I wrote the article I would phrase it " those charged have claimed no prior knowledge...." It just seems odd that the people charged are cleared of intent so easily.

You are not alone in suspecting that she was aware that Wortman accumulated everything he needed to pose as an officer in order to deceive and cause harm.

"Banfield was added as a defendant this week to the proposed class-action lawsuit launched by families of the victims. Her brother, James Banfield, and her brother-in-law, Brian Brewster, were also named as defendants.

A statement of claim in the civil case alleges that she "was aware of and facilitated Wortman's preparations, including but not limited to, his accumulation of firearms, ammunition, other weapons, gasoline, police paraphernalia, and the outfitting of a replica RCMP vehicle." The allegations have not been tested in court.

James Banfield and Brewster are also charged with unlawfully providing the shooter with .223-calibre Remington cartridges and .40-calibre Smith & Wesson cartridges in the month leading up to the massacre. All three are due back in court March 9."
​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova...ngs-lisa-banfield-police-statements-1.5911199

​

 

[newguy123]

Otto, I wanted to clarify something. You wrote "You are not alone in suspecting that she was aware..." Actually, my concern was not that she was, or was not, aware. My concern was that the RCMP released to the media the statement that she was not aware. I would like to know how that fact was established. There would be records of ammunition which was purchased, so there would be a paper trail. As for what the ammunition was to be used for, did they rely on the testimony of the people who committed the crime to determine intent? To me, that is shaky evidence.

My mind wrestles with two opposing thoughts on this matter. The first is that she made a "sweetheart" deal like Karla Homolka did in the Paul Bernardo murders, and this charge is a slap on the wrist in exchange for information. The other is that all the confusion here is due to not knowing the full story and that I should be patient and trust in those charged with the responsibility of prosecuting this horrific series of events. I don't want to go down that conspiracy theory road.....but neither do I want to just blindly trust either.

I honestly struggle to know who/what to believe in this whole matter.

 

[otto]

Otto, I wanted to clarify something. You wrote "You are not alone in suspecting that she was aware..." Actually, my concern was not that she was, or was not, aware. My concern was that the RCMP released to the media the statement that she was not aware. I would like to know how that fact was established. There would be records of ammunition which was purchased, so there would be a paper trail. As for what the ammunition was to be used for, did they rely on the testimony of the people who committed the crime to determine intent? To me, that is shaky evidence.

My mind wrestles with two opposing thoughts on this matter. The first is that she made a "sweetheart" deal like Karla Homolka did in the Paul Bernardo murders, and this charge is a slap on the wrist in exchange for information. The other is that all the confusion here is due to not knowing the full story and that I should be patient and trust in those charged with the responsibility of prosecuting this horrific series of events. I don't want to go down that conspiracy theory road.....but neither do I want to just blindly trust either.

I honestly struggle to know who/what to believe in this whole matter.

I understand the difference, and agree that she very likely self-reported that she was unaware of his intentions to commit murder. The class action lawsuit illustrates that some people doubt that this is true. When she helped obtain ammunition for him, did she think he intended to shoot bottles on fence posts? Did she think it was part of his "let's pretend" world of police dress-up?

The fact that he could not buy the ammunition should have been enough for her to know that she and her family should not buy ammunition for him. They don't need to understand the legal reasons, they have to trust and respect that there is a good reason why he could not purchase the ammunition.

Hopefully there is an actual paper trail of evidence to support the statement that she had "no prior knowledge of the gunman's actions.'' Possibilities are that there is email between them where he gives an innocent reason for wanting her and her relatives to purchase ammunition for him. I personally don't think that is enough. If she can survive freezing temperatures overnight in the dense bush without shoes, coat and proper clothing, then she can figure out that providing ammunition to a volatile man who holds grudges is not a good idea. She has to take responsibility for her actions and decisions, not play the Homolka card of "damsel in distress" while facilitating murder.

I suspect the class action lawsuit will come down to what she ought to have known could happen if she provided ammunition to the man she had been with 19 years. She claims that he was abusive, even though there is no police record of abuse. She remained with him for 19 years even though there are available services that could have helped her leave an "abusive" relationship. She ought to have known that he held grudges, that he was volatile, that he wanted her help to get around justified law and that he was not coping well with covid life. She ought to have known that supplying ammunition to Wortman could result in murder in a perfect storm of circumstances. Just an opinion ...

 

[deugirtni]

I was just reading this, the reference to “a party” is quite unusual.

Court documents says mass shooter's spouse was beaten, begged for life before escape - HalifaxToday.ca
“According to Banfield's account, an argument started during an evening party to celebrate their 19th anniversary at the "warehouse," one of the buildings the gunman owned in Portapique, N.S. During a FaceTime call to discuss holding a "commitment ceremony" for their 20th anniversary, a friend had suggested "don't do it," the witness statement says.

Banfield said in the statement she became upset and said she was leaving the party, and her partner became angry that she was leaving. Banfield told the officer she felt sorry and returned to apologize, but Wortman was "already mad," and she continued back to their cottage in Portapique....”

I'm finding it really bizarre.. the circumstances of how all of this supposedly sparked.. here we have a couple who has been together almost two decades, celebrating their anniversary.. 'partying' albeit online, with another couple who are friends.. they speak of their next anniversary the 'twenty year' milestone, to be reached the following year, and planning ahead to hold a 'commitment ceremony'.. all good, right? For whatever reason, the friend(s) say 'don't do it'.. and that was enough to completely ruin the evening, the anniversary, the celebration, the 'mood' for this woman who has apparently been a repeated victim of abuse, has lived with her partner's excessive drinking, etc., for all these years? Something just isn't computing with me. Why would someone who had led that life, who was accustomed to this man's faults, be so easily set off by such seemingly minimal opinion/comment from friends? I could be wrong, but had always understood that women in such relationships were, rightly or wrongly, more prone to keeping the peace, treading softly, walking on eggshells, not wanting to rock the boat, etc. I'm getting the impression it was a toxic relationship all around, and volatility was an issue for more than just one of them. Not that it excuses anyone, but if you take all the little pieces of knowledge and experience this woman had to have had, and combine it with her partner's reaction to the Covid situation, and his arms and ammunition availability, and perhaps other facts she may have known, it just doesn't make sense. imo.

 

[newguy123]

One might think her disapproval of the "don't do it" comment would win favour with him as it showed support for him and them being a couple.
The whole story is full of inconsistencies. She shows support for them as a couple and it upsets him? He wakes her up and beats her at the cottage, but then allows her to get dressed so they can walk back to the warehouse? Cautions her not to slip on the floor covered in gasoline? He doesn't trust her and makes her walk in front of him, but allowed her to go back into the cottage to get a firearm for him? She is placed in the mock cruiser, fearing for her life, and escapes, leaving weapons behind? She flees into the woods, but leaves her coat as a trail marker? It just seems so strange.

Even video "party" incident at the warehouse though, were the events of that night going to happen anyway?

 

[MistyWaters]

One might think her disapproval of the "don't do it" comment would win favour with him as it showed support for him and them being a couple.
The whole story is full of inconsistencies. She shows support for them as a couple and it upsets him? He wakes her up and beats her at the cottage, but then allows her to get dressed so they can walk back to the warehouse? Cautions her not to slip on the floor covered in gasoline? He doesn't trust her and makes her walk in front of him, but allowed her to go back into the cottage to get a firearm for him? She is placed in the mock cruiser, fearing for her life, and escapes, leaving weapons behind? She flees into the woods, but leaves her coat as a trail marker? It just seems so strange.

Even video "party" incident at the warehouse though, were the events of that night going to happen anyway?

I’ve never gotten past the initial story, that she threw her coat in the woods - expecting police to know the coat belonged to her. If the night was so dangerous that she dared not venture out of hiding, why would she think police would be out and about in the woods risking their own lives, then recognizing her coat was a signal she hoped they’d find her hiding out? That makes no sense to me.

“She’d had a puffy jacket, but she’d thrown it into the woods while escaping from the killer in a desperate hope the police would find it — that they would find her.”
‘It’s like he snapped’: N.S. mass killer’s spouse recounts day killing began in newly released court documents

 

[tayaway]

One might think her disapproval of the "don't do it" comment would win favour with him as it showed support for him and them being a couple.
The whole story is full of inconsistencies. She shows support for them as a couple and it upsets him? He wakes her up and beats her at the cottage, but then allows her to get dressed so they can walk back to the warehouse? Cautions her not to slip on the floor covered in gasoline? He doesn't trust her and makes her walk in front of him, but allowed her to go back into the cottage to get a firearm for him? She is placed in the mock cruiser, fearing for her life, and escapes, leaving weapons behind? She flees into the woods, but leaves her coat as a trail marker? It just seems so strange.

Even video "party" incident at the warehouse though, were the events of that night going to happen anyway?

BBM

That's it in a nutshell; since we can't get our hands on the police case file... she may remain a puzzle. As a domestic violence victim, she very well might have known everything, especially since she participated in a dry run with GW the day before. Then again, maybe he forced her into the drive as punishment for some absurd domestic infraction and so she had no idea of his plans.

My mind wrestles with two opposing thoughts on this matter. The first is that she made a "sweetheart" deal like Karla Homolka did in the Paul Bernardo murders, and this charge is a slap on the wrist in exchange for information.

You did not just compare her to Karla Homolka, a woman who initiated the rape and murder of her own sister? The one who Paul Bernardo claims to have murdered two school girls? Prior to hooking up with her, he was known as the Scarborough Rapist, not killer.

No. IMO: Whether she knew his intentions or not, LB was not the brain behind the massacre, nor was she a natural born killer, like KH (who, as a child, enjoyed doing fun things like dropping her pet rodent from a high window to watch it die as it hit the pavement outside). LB's first loyalty was to GW, herself second. KH never had loyalty to anyone but herself.

IMO: In shock, once LB realized what was happening, she blurted out some inconsistent drivel to the LE; they didn't need any deal with her. Does she even know what's truth or lie at this point?

I honestly struggle to know who/what to believe in this whole matter.

I'm right there with you.

 

[newguy123]

Tayaway, when I compared the KH situation to this, it was not a comparison of the acts themselves, but of someone potentially using information in exchange for a lighter sentence.
It is perfectly understandable that the story would come out as "inconsistent drivel" rather than a rehearsed narrative. However, I did note inconsistencies which stood out to me. There may be perfectly sound explanations for those inconsistencies, but at present I don't know those answers.
Many family members of the victims believe she was more involved than she admits. I have no idea if that is true. However, that still does not in any way mitigate what the shooter did.

 

[Errrr]

I read the dome light concern to be that if he had seen it from distance he'd know exactly where she was, even when it went out.
Conversely, why not leave the door open to lure him into looking for you there while you go the other way..........

Even after you close the door, those things take awhile to turn off.

 

[Errrr]

I read the dome light concern to be that if he had seen it from distance he'd know exactly where she was, even when it went out.
Conversely, why not leave the door open to lure him into looking for you there while you go the other way..........

Even after you close the door, those things take awhile to turn off.

Tayaway, when I compared the KH situation to this, it was not a comparison of the acts themselves, but of someone potentially using information in exchange for a lighter sentence.
It is perfectly understandable that the story would come out as "inconsistent drivel" rather than a rehearsed narrative. However, I did note inconsistencies which stood out to me. There may be perfectly sound explanations for those inconsistencies, but at present I don't know those answers.
Many family members of the victims believe she was more involved than she admits. I have no idea if that is true. However, that still does not in any way mitigate what the shooter did.

if you are going to release information in exchange for a lighter sentence, you should wait till you are charged with something first.