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

New Posts

Apologies, this isn't the same video I posted. The one I posted was the drive from Portapique to Enfield.
 
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........
 
Amoca said:
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?"
Click to expand...
I am an idiot for not watching the video prior to commenting.
 
No it's my fault for not putting in a good description of the content. Had I done that none of what followed would have happened. I bear this huge burden solely on my shoulders......and while the weight is heavy, I will carry it forward...alone.....

Seriously, no problem here! As a Canadian I just feel the urge to say "I'm sorry too!"
 
newguy123 said:
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........
Click to expand...
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.

I think about Heather O'Brien's family who are cousins to my best friend's husband, saying they were returned their mom's car with "human remains" in it and assume it's brain matter or bone, and that breaks my heart. How horrific. They've been through enough, I think they deserve answers.
 
I cannot imagine receiving "human remains" in a returned vehicle. Someone messed up big time there. After watching the video of the march noted above, it seems so very strange that the families are waiting still for news and details. I would have thought given the horrific nature of the crimes, a little extra sensitivity and effort would be put forth to assuage their grief. To think families hear "updates" on the news like the rest of us seems so sad.
 
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?
 
Black Pill influence in this man's life is not a conspiracy theory, but alright then. The RCMP has been noted to be not being forthright about this, the "conspiracy" angle about payments to this man as an informer is brought up in Maclean's - a major well known Canadian magazine not me. The company also puts out Chatelaine, and which used to be owned by Sir Conrad Black.

Nor is the link between anti-Muslim and incel/black pill mine - the interviews by the men who did these they infer it or directly talk about it themselves.

I'll just not bother posting about this case, but you are incorrect not me. The "conspiracy" you are concerned about has literally convened a Federal investigation into this.

*** also, just for a bit of extra on this, you might recognize Macleans from Breivik, as he sourced them in his Manifesto.
 
Last edited:
newguy123 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I listened to The Current podcast from today and they spent a good chunk talking about the decision to do an independent review instead of a public inquiry. It just does not make any sense.
 
newguy123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think the writer of that obit was unfamiliar with the case , and/or, they are bad at writing.
 
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............
 
Errrr said:
I think the writer of that obit was unfamiliar with the case , and/or, they are bad at writing.
Click to expand...

It was Sean’s parents and both daughters were very upset. The daughters wrote the obituary which is joint for them. I assume it was because there were issues between the family and his parents and them not liking his wife for whatever reason.
 
Because there has been so little published, specifically pertaining the girlfriend of the shooter, it has occurred to me lots over the last couple months, why is she not speaking? SHE alone, could tell the families so much. She really could answer questions.
Yes, she's a victim too, but she knows more because she alone survived.

She holds the key to much of this. I honestly believe (just in my head, no actual proof) that he probably was screaming to her after she had escaped, that he would kill the neighbours and everyone in his way, until he found her. I remember at the time there being rumbles online that he may have gone to Wentworth looking for her.

It's time she speaks. She can provide direct answers to the children of the Blair's and Lisa McCully for one. I'm sure she feels guilty for this tragedy, but keeping silent hurts everyone more.

I honestly don't mean to victim shame.
 
Last edited:
newguy123 said:
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............
Click to expand...
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.

I'm not an expert in these matters but I would say the largest mass murder ever on Canadian soil deserves the absolute best we can give it and nothing less. That would be through a public inquiry. I really hope the powers that be reconsider this decision.
 
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.


 
With regard to a victim’s car returned to her family with human remains and bullet casings still inside the vehicle, I was curious who’s responsibility is it to clean up the aftermath of crime scenes, in general. Apparently it’s not the role of the police, it’s the property owners responsibility, as gruesome as that might be. There are private companies who’s business is exactly that. Just a side note, if my relative was murdered in a vehicle, I don’t think I’d want it back and would either get it towed to a wreckers or demand the insurance company collect it and write it off.

But I can certainly understand the victim’s families horror if they anticipated the RCMP would’ve had the vehicle cleaned for them in advance. It’s impossible for anyone to be prepared for tragedy such as this if it suddenly happens.

Who cleans up after crime scenes like the Toronto attack? It's not an easy job
 
newguy123 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
I, frankly, do not entirely understand the hue and cry for an "inquiry". Having said that, there have been a couple involving police in BC that have seemingly been successful. However, in general, they seem to be unwieldy, expensive monoliths that attract a never-ending stream of lay-people intent on repeating ad nauseam their subjective experience of being victimized while producing no clear way forward.

In this case, there is a contingent of Nova Scotians utterly committed to the beliefs that the police and the government are profoundly corrupt as evidenced in social media groups, and even in some MSM, such as MacLean's Mag. It is not difficult to imagine that an inquiry in this situation would be overwhelmed by dozens of individuals intent on discussing their beliefs and various "proofs" of that alleged corruption. It is obvious that any outcome that does not reach that conclusion will not be accepted, and will be met with further claims of corruption. The primary reason for demanding an inquiry appears to be to put people, especially police officers, under oath in the believe such an oath will induce someone who is corrupt to cop (no pun intended) to the truth. It seems likely, also, that such an inquiry would attract a good deal of pro and anti-gun lobbyists demanding an audience.

Clearly, there were mistakes, serious mistakes - mistakes that very likely resulted in people losing their lives. It seems highly unlikely that the panel review will not uncover at least some of those mistakes and failings, and that a panel will make related findings and recommendations. Equally likely, those findings will point to short-comings in the RCMP - training, equipment, staffing, decision-making, reporting, experience, supervision, etc., whatever. That, and gun violence, in general, and questions about whether it is possible to identify and flag individuals with this killers potential in advance and what can be done, if anything, to prevent such a psychotic break, would seem to be more appropriate subject matter for full blown inquiries.
 
MistyWaters said:
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
Click to expand...
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.

In a CTV Atlantic poll published today, which usually has about 1600 responders on serious matters, over 7000 responded to the latest poll, 72% of us, want a PUBLIC inquiry, not a 3 person in house team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 112 more.
Total: 3,650 (members: 113, guests: 3,537)

Online statistics

Members online
113
Guests online
3,537
Total visitors
3,650
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,393
Messages
17,968,301
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top