“Cover-up: an attempt to prevent people discovering the truth about a serious mistake or crime.”

“Whitewash: a deliberate attempt to conceal unpleasant or incriminationg facts about a person or organization in order to protect their reputation.”

A less authoritative source, Wikipedia, describes a cover-up in these terms:

“A cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrong-doing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. In a passive cover-up information is simply not provided; in an active cover-up deception is used.The expression is usually applied to people in positions of authority who abuse their power to avoid or silence criticism or to deflect guilt of wrongdoing. Those who initiate a cover up (or their allies) may be responsible for a misdeed, a breach of trust or duty or a crime.While the terms are often used interchangeably, cover-up involves withholding incriminatory evidence, while whitewash involves releasing misleading evidence.”

Wikipedia has this to say about the typology of cover-ups:

“The following list is considered to be a typology since those who engage in cover-ups tend to use many of the same methods of hiding the truth and defending themselves. This list was compiled from famous cover-ups such as Watergate Scandal, Iran-Contra Affair, My Lai Massacre, Pentagon Papers, the cover-up of corruption in New York City under Boss Tweed (William M. Tweed and Tammany Hall) in the late 1800s, and the tobacco industry coverup of the health hazards of smoking.  The methods in actual cover-ups tend to follow the general order of the list below.

Initial Response to Allegation

1. Flat Denial
2. Convince the Media to Bury the Story
3. Preemptively Distribute False Information
4. Claim That the “Problem” is Minimal
5. Claim Faulty Memory
6. Claim the Accusations are Half Truths
7. Claim the Critic Has No Proof
8. Attack the Critic’s Motive
9. Attack the Critic’s Character

Withhold or Tamper with Evidence

1. Prevent the Discovery of Evidence
2. Destroy or Alter the Evidence
3. Make Discovery of Evidence Difficult
4. Create Misleading Names of Individuals and Companies to Hide Funding
5. Lie or Commit Perjury
6. Block or Delay Investigations
7. Issue Restraining Orders
8. Claim Executive Privilege

Delayed Response to Allegation

1. Deny a Restricted Definition of Wrongdoing (e.g. torture)
2. Limited Hang Out (i.e., Confess to Minor Charges)
3. Use Biased Evidence as a Defense
4. Claim That the Critic’s Evidence is Biased.
5. Select a Biased Blue Ribbon Commission or “Independent” Inquiry

Intimidate Participants, Witnesses or Whistleblowers

1. Bribe or buy out the critic
2. Generally Intimidate the Critic By Following Him/Her, Killing Pets, etc.
3. Blackmail: Hire Private Investigators and Threaten to Reveal Past Wrongdoing (“Dirt’)
4. Death Threats of the Critic or His Family
5. Threaten the Critic with Loss of Job or Future Employment in Industry
6. Transfer the Critic to an Inferior Job or Location
7. Intimidate the Critic with Lawsuits or SLAPP suits
8. Murder; Assassination

Publicity Management

1. Bribe the Press
2. Secretly Plant Stories in the Press
3. Retaliate Against Hostile Media
4. Threaten the Press With Loss of Access
5. Attack the Motives of the Press
6. Place Defensive Advertisements
7. Buy Out the News Source.

Damage Control

1. Claim No Knowledge of Wrongdoing
2. Scapegoats: Blame an Underling for Unauthorized Action
3. Fire the Person(s) in Charge

Win Court Cases

1. Hire the Best Lawyers
2. Hire Scientists and Expert Witnesses Who Will Support Your Story
3. Delay with Legal Maneuvers
4. Influence or Control the Judges

Reward Cover-up Participants

1. Hush Money
2. Little or No Punishment
3. Pardon or Commute Sentences
4. Promote Employees as a Reward for Cover-up
5. Reemploy the Employee After Dust Clears”

When this inquiry was established, our clients hoped that it would finally provide them with the opportunity to seek out the true facts surrounding the Crown’s decision to stay charges against Robert William Pickton arising from his attempt to murder a Vancouver sex trade worker in March of 1997 and the impotent police investigations of him that ensued until he was serendipitously snared by an unrelated investigation on February 5, 2002.  In our opening remarks to the Commission on October 11, 2011, we pledged to assist the Commission in its mandate by helping to pry the lid off the scandal and expose all the evidence to public scrutiny. 

We knew our task would be challenging, but we still grossly underestimated just how difficult it would prove to be.

Let’s first take a harder look at these statements:  Who is making the determination that the content was legal?  Why, the police themselves…might they have a vested interest in clearing their own senior officers?  If the porn was actually no worse than what is found in the newspaper, why not produce all of it immediately for public, independent inspection to determine whether crimes were actually committed?

With that out of the way, this matter raises much bigger issues.  There obviously continues to be a pervasive culture within this police force that considers it acceptable to harbour sexist and misogynistic attitudes while at the same time falsely assuring the public that those anachronistic beliefs were rooted out long ago.  Make no mistake about it, VPD management would have covered up this unseemly matter and kept it under wraps had diligent blogger Alex Tsakumis not exposed it two days ago.  That’s not news either, but the public deserves much, much better.

Round up the usual suspects.

Robinson outside court, February 13, 2012. Photo: Rafal Gerszak, Globe and Mail

In what line of work can a person be involved in two deaths, face criminal charges arising from both incidents, and not only keep his job, but receive paid leave for over four years while the wheels of criminal justice grind slowly along?

Answer: when the accused is a taxpayer-funded public servant, like the RCMP’s infamous Benjamin “Monty” Robinson, currently on trial for alleged obstruction of justice resulting from his actions following an off-duty accident on October 25, 2008 in which motorcyclist Orion Hutchinson was killed.  Robinson also faces perjury charges arising from his conduct after the Taser-related death of Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver Airport on October 14, 2007.  I understand that he has been on paid leave since October of 2007.

The system’s handling of Robinson’s cases is truly shocking.  My sympathies are extended, in the strongest possible terms, to Orion’s mother and sister, Judith and Daria, and to Robert’s mother, Zofia Csikowski.  I have met them all and can only imagine what they must be going through.

I was with Judith and Daria Hutchinson at the meeting where Crown Counsel Geoff Barragar, Melissa Gillespie and Neil MacKenzie tried to explain why the Crown did not charge Robinson with impaired driving causing death, impaired driving, criminal negligence causing death or leaving the scene of an accident after his vehicle killed Orion while Robinson was on his way home from a drinking party.  If and when it becomes appropriate, I intend to comment on the Crown’s conduct of this tragic case.

Did I miss something?  When did this happen?  Why was it necessary to depart from a century of tradition?

Our tax dollars hard at work…maybe this explains why there were so few police officers on the streets the night of the Stanley Cup riots.

Bill Hiscox: Brian Hutchinson photo

Bill Hiscox attended the Commission’s hearings last week.  Here is some of what  Brian Hutchinson of the National Post had to say about his visit:

“Despite all that he knew, despite his efforts to assist police during their tragically flawed investigation of serial killer Robert “Willie” Pickton, despite his willingness to answer any question put to him now, in the long-overdue search for the truth, Bill Hiscox will not be heard at the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry.

He’s not on the inquiry’s private list of potential witnesses. He’s been cast aside again, and he can’t understand why.

…..

He says he’s still available, should the inquiry ever wish to hear from him. It was two months ago that lawyer Cameron Ward requested that Mr. Hiscox be added to the witness list, along with Pickton’s brother David, who lived on the family farm while murders were being committed there. While Mr. Oppal has not ruled on the requests, a senior inquiry source says they will be rejected. The commissioner is not obliged to explain his decisions to the public, for whom the inquiry was called.”

To repeat, the National Post reports today that ” a senior inquiry source says [our application for more witnesses] will be rejected”.  Really?  Is ”a senior inquiry source” advising the media of the disposition of our formal application before the Commission tells us what it has decided?

…..

The police are people who do difficult and sometimes dangerous work that most of the rest of us couldn’t or wouldn’t be willing to take on ourselves.  Most of the women and men who choose the law enforcement profession as a career are dedicated to public service and perform their duties conscientiously.  Some aren’t so dedicated or conscientous and some make mistakes.  All of us are human, and mistakes made in good faith can always be forgiven.

What I find unforgiveable are those cases where police use the taxpayers’ money to investigate their own mistakes and try to minimize them by manipulating public opinion in their favour.  It certainly doesn’t happen all the time, but it has occurred in so may serious cases I have handled that I get frustrated and discouraged when I see the police use my tax dollars to engage in the same predictable ham-handed cover ups and whitewashes.

Here are three of the most egregious examples of police cover ups I have encountered:

The 1998 “Riot at the Hyatt”:  It wasn’t a riot at all, but Vancouver police waded into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators and beat many of them with wooden nightsticks.  Several young people were seriously injured.  The Vancouver police investigated the matter for over a year and issued a voluminous report concluding that the victims’ complaints of excessive force were unsubstantiated.  The investigators failed to identify any of the police officers present and neglected to interview them.  The police used taxpayer money to stymie a public hearing and to defend my clients’ lawsuit until the day before trial, when they settled.

The 2000 beating death of Jeffrey Berg: Vancouver police constable David Bruce-Thomas beat and kicked Berg to death in the presence of two of his VPD colleagues.  The internal investigation was handled by Bruce-Thomas’ VPD  friend and car racing teammate Rob Rothwell, who cleared Bruce-Thomas of any wrongdoing without interviewing any of the three police officers who were at the scene.  Instead, self-serving and exculpatory written statements of the three VPD constables were prepared and delivered by the lawyer all three visited some time later.  It took Crown Counsel years to decide not to charge Bruce-Thomas with a criminal offence in respect of the homicide.   At the subsequent coroner’s inquest, Bruce-Thomas confirmed that Berg, who had no criminal record but was a suspect in a break and enter, was unarmed and did not touch or threaten any of the police officers.  Bruce-Thomas claimed that he couldn’t remember inflicting many of the blows that were responsible for over a dozen separate bruises found on Berg’s body.  The retired judge who later presided over a public hearing into the Berg family’s complaint himself had a major amnesiac incident requiring hospitalization during the hearing.  The family’s complaint was ultimately deemed to be unsubstantiated.

The 2004 fatal shooting of Kevin St. Arnaud:  The RCMP investigated the incident wherein RCMP Cst. Ryan Sheremetta shot and killed Kevin St. Arnaud, an unarmed break and enter suspect, after chasing him across a snow-covered soccer field in Vanderhoof.  Although Sheremetta’s testimony at the coroner’s inquest was so incredible that he was subjected to a year long investigation for perjury by the RCMP (which ultimately cleared him), no charges were laid in respect of the homicide.  The RCMP investigation was so inadequate that they failed to canvass the neighborhood for eyewitnesses.  The eyewitnesses who testified at the coroner’s inquest, including Sheremetta’s own RCMP partner, disputed his account and confirmed the forensic evidence disclosing that the two men were facing each other about 5 metres apart when Sheremetta pumped three bullets into St. Arnaud’s chest. 

…

So, do police cover up and whitewash their mistakes in serious cases?  In my opinion, absolutely.  Does the criminal justice system work in those cases?  Absolutely not.

Have the police covered up or whitewashed their actions in the missing women investigations?  At this point, it sure looks like it to me.