Former Soldier's Dreams Crushed by Shooting Accusations - Article

[57Chevy]

250 rounds of ammunition and smoke grenades, were “unique” to him.

"unique" to him ?

The Ammo and smoke grenades have Lot Numbers that would have been issued
to his unit for an exercise that he would have had to take part in.
A quick verfication on the Ammunition Data Card from the ammo supply group corresponding to the Lot Number of the smoke grenades would clearly reveal when the 'user unit' would have received them, and how many they got. etc.

Therefore, "unique" to him is a crock.

 

[medicineman]

I suppose we've learned one concrete lesson from this:

Make sure you remove identifying marks from your kit before turning it in...or doing something stupid while using it

There FTFY...I just remembered that clown that robbed a corner store one night on the way home from work, wearing his combat jacket, with his name tag, rank and unit on it.  Or the classmate of mine in Grade 10 that got caught doing B&E's - he was a boarder at the school I was in so his socks had his name sewn into them...he was using them as gloves, but lost one at a scene after tripping an alarm.  Took the police about a day to figure out where to find him  :.

Train's back on track...

MM

 

[Old Sweat]

There FTFY...I just remembered that clown that robbed a corner store one night on the way home from work, wearing his combat jacket, with his name tag, rank and unit on it.  Or the classmate of mine in Grade 10 that got caught doing B&E's - he was a boarder at the school I was in so his socks had his name sewn into them...he was using them as gloves, but lost one at a scene after tripping an alarm.  Took the police about a day to figure out where to find him  :.

Train's back on track...

MM

I think we are getting a glimpse of one of several interrogation techniques - trying to convince the interviewee that the interviewer knows more than he does in the hope of getting a response.

Re leaving ID behind, a local OPP constable told me about a B&E he investigated. The perp had used his bank card to jimmy a window and then dropped it and forgot to pick it up. Back on track . . .

 

[GAP]

My grandson was telling me yesterday that two of his friends were drawn down on by the police, treated roughly, handcuffed before being stuffed into the cruiser....all because they were sitting on the roof of a house shooting a BB gun at people on the sidewalk.

And they and their parents are whining? I hope they were severely Bit#% slapped upside the head.


again, proof there is no cure for stupid.  :

the one good point: At least now my grandson understands why I won't let him plink around with his BB gun unless I am there and we are outside the city... :nod:

 

[medicineman]

My grandson was telling me yesterday that two of his friends were drawn down on by the police, treated roughly, handcuffed before being stuffed into the cruiser....all because they were sitting on the roof of a house shooting a BB gun at people on the sidewalk.

And they and their parents are whining? I hope they were severely Bit#% slapped upside the head.

In Winnipeg??!!...lucky the cops didn't plug them...or worse, local bangers.

MM

 

[Haggis]

"unique" to him ?

The Ammo and smoke grenades have Lot Numbers that would have been issued
to his unit for an exercise that he would have had to take part in.
A quick verfication on the Ammunition Data Card from the ammo supply group corresponding to the Lot Number of the smoke grenades would clearly reveal when the 'user unit' would have received them, and how many they got. etc.

Therefore, "unique" to him is a crock.

You are, of course, working on the premise that the muntions were service munitions and, therefore, properly documented, accounted for and traceable.

But what if the ammo was purchased at Canadian Tire?  What if the smoke grenades were of the type used by fire departments for training?  The Durham Regional Police's job just got a lot more complicated, then.

 

[Jarnhamar]

..and, with all the investigations you've headed up, I guess your some kind of expert??

What??...you haven't?..oh....

I'll have you know I have a considerable number of investigations under my belt as a PMC of the JRs mess. 

A polygraph test and they don't even ask him about the barracks box?  Russel Williams scare tactics?

I'm just a caveman lawyer but I get the feeling that a guy who applied to be a cop who shows up at the police station  then after being LIED TO by the police turns around and speaks to them for 6 hours without a lawyer THEN offers to do a polygraph test probably isn't a criminal master mind. I'm not going to make him the main suspect.
"We don't think you did the shooting but we think you know about the box"? That's right out of a cheesy cop movie.

 

[X Royal]

You are, of course, working on the premise that the muntions were service munitions and, therefore, properly documented, accounted for and traceable.

But what if the ammo was purchased at Canadian Tire?  What if the smoke grenades were of the type used by fire departments for training?  The Durham Regional Police's job just got a lot more complicated, then.

If this was the case then how was the products "unique" to him" ?

 

[Haggis]

If this was the case then how was the products "unique" to him" ?

My point exactly.  As others have said, if it was CF service ammo the lot and batch number could be checked against specific activities/exercises.  A check of unit pay records would be able to show if said suspect was a participant in those activities/exercises (or not).

Did the type of ammuntion recovered in the barracks box match the type allegedly fired at cars (if recovered/known)?

Was the suspect's whereabouts and/or alibi on the date(s) of the alleged shooting(s) checked?

Were the barracks box and smoke grenades examined for fingerprints which would make them "unique to him"?  (Maybe so, which is why the police are stating such.)

Sure hope someone from DRPS is reading this thread. It could save them a lot of work (and a lot of face).  ;D

 

[fraserdw]

The other issue is that the individual is not charged but may be having his future destroyed, pony up the evidence or clear the guy, one or the other.  No public service has the right to hold a person in limbo just because they feel like it.  Get a lawyer and start making things hot for the cops if you are innocent.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

For a one sided newspaper article, there's sure a pile of advice, slagging, recrimination and outright, exaggerated speculation going on here.

There must have been a sale on crystal balls that I missed. :

 

[Haggis]

There must have been a sale on crystal balls that I missed. :

They're only available on-line.  I'll PM you the URL - don't want everyone to have one....  :nod:

 

[Greymatters]

I was once advised to never ever take a polygraph test.

1) they aren't admissable as evidence

2) the science beyhind them isn't perfect

3) Even if you pass they won't necessarily stop investigating

4) If you fail (false negatives happen) they'll likely look into you even more.

Best thing to do is tell them that you want legal advice before taking the test.  Lawyers will always tell you not to take it necause of the reasons above.

There are two kinds of results on a polygraph test:

a) you failed cause you are guilty
b) you passed because you know how to fool the polygraph, but we know you are guilty

Either way you lose.

 

[George Wallace]

"unique" to him ?

The Ammo and smoke grenades have Lot Numbers that would have been issued
to his unit for an exercise that he would have had to take part in.
A quick verfication on the Ammunition Data Card from the ammo supply group corresponding to the Lot Number of the smoke grenades would clearly reveal when the 'user unit' would have received them, and how many they got. etc.

Therefore, "unique" to him is a crock.

So true, but having been indirectly involved in an investigation where it would seem to have been a simple and "logical" matter of tracing the Lot Numbers, it was not done.  The smoke grenades in question had Gun Tape on them and the investigators would not, for whatever reasons, remove the tape to reveal the Lot Numbers on the evidence.  In the end the evidence, being 'ammo', was destroyed by the authorities.  If it boggles your mind, it sure does mine as well.

 

[cupper]

There are two kinds of results on a polygraph test:

a) you failed cause you are guilty
b) you passed because you know how to fool the polygraph, but we know you are guilty

Either way you lose.

You forgot option c) the results were inconclusive, which indicates that you were trying to fool the polygraph, so you are obviously guilty. :nod:

 

[Jarnhamar]

"Why do you need a lawyer if you're not guilty?"

 

[fraserdw]

If it boggles your mind, it sure does mine as well.

Unfortunately, it no longer boggles my mind, Canadian cops have become almost pathologically afraid of anyone having ammo or owning a firearm.  I must say the disease manifests itself in Ontario the most.  Witch hunts seems to be the order of the day.  So if the evidence is destroyed why is there still an investigation?

 

[Good2Golf]

"Why do you need a lawyer if you're not guilty?"

Milgaard, et al.     

 

[Teeps74]

Hmmm, 2010. This is 2012, and still ongoing.

Last time I dealt with our brethren in clothing stores concerning barrack boxes, it was as if I signed out their own personal stores. Barrack boxes are in the system, were then, ergo the MP would have easily have been able to discern if the gentleman in question had turned it in (assuming it was not an "army surplus" spare).

Innocent until proven guilty. However, 2 year later, this appears to be testing that theory.

 

[fraserdw]

Last time I dealt with our brethren in clothing stores concerning barrack boxes

Last time I was in a reserve unit and signed for a barrack box it was on a 638 which was ripped up when I turned the box back in.  Once I turned it in there was no evidence one way or the other as to whether I turned it in or not.  Saying that is kinda like saying the ammo was unique to me without checking the lot numbers!