Trial, Week 16: Summary - November 13


WEEK 16: NOVEMBER 12 - 15, 1996

   * Monday, November 11 - no court      * Day 75: Thursday, November 14
   * Day 73: Tuesday, November 12        * Day 76: Friday, November 15
   * Day 74: Wednesday, November 13


Edited by Roz Royce and Trond Halle, from notes by Trond Halle (Defendant)

Posted by Settlers In Support of Indigenous Sovereignty


Abbreviations used in notes:

DC = Don Campbell (Defense)
SF = Shelagh Franklin (Defense)
GW = George Wool (Defense)
ST = Sheldon Tate (Defense)
MA = Manuel Azevedo (Defense)
HR = Harry Rankin (Defense)

LB = Lance Bernard (Crown)
JF = Jennifer Fawcus (Crown)

J = Judge

The jury and J are in. Cst. John Toogood (JT) is back on the witness stand.

SF - JT agrees that part of his job was to find out not only what happened, but why it happened. He agrees that Wolverine (W) was talkative to explain why he was there and what his beliefs were. JT remembers W suggesting that he contact Bruce Clark because Clark had knowledge of law in the constitutional area. JT says that he listened to W during that three hour interview. He says that he'll listen to people if they will speak to him.

SF suggests that the media had framed the camp as terrorists. JT doesn't know if they labelled them terrorists or not. JT says, "In my mind, I wouldn't classify him (W) as a terrorist." JT agrees that he said last week that he admired W for standing up for what he believes in. SF suggests that JT is the first officer, other than the natives, who had listened to W with an open mind. She says that if the police had listened with an open mind like he had, then maybe all the trouble could have been avoided.

JT didn't know that the police had a policy of no negotiations. He didn't know that the Attorney General had said that there was no other side to the story. Nor did he know that Dr. Webster was instructing the police that no real negotiations were going on.

JT says that he didn't think of the historical context when questioning W. He admits that he did ask him about his background and that W had discussed native history. SF says that some people have suggested that "the poor Indian people have lost their land, their language and their culture." SF points out that W had said that he and his people are still here. JT agrees that W had said something along these lines, as well as discussing aboriginal law.

SF asks if JT knows if aboriginal rights still exist. J says that this is a question of law and JT's opinion of the law is of no assistance to the jury. SF asks if JT is sworn to uphold the rule of law. "Yes, to the best of my abilities." JT says that W had told him that the laws of Canada do not apply and only the U.N. and Privy Council laws apply. SF suggests that what W had told him was that the constitutional laws continue to protect aboriginal rights and continue to enshrine the 1763 Royal Proclamation. SF reads from Section 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that says just this. JT recalls that W did speak of the 1763 Royal Proclamation.

SF wonders if JT had ever heard about the transfer of children from one group to another. JT hadn't. SF says that this transfer of children is condemned in an accord seeking to end genocide, which Canada signed. She points out that this is just what W spoke of when he spoke of the residential schools. SF wants to enter a paper which has international law on it. The J says that law is not entered as exhibits. SF asks how the jury is supposed to find out about international law then. J: "The jury has to take the law from me." There are a few audible sighs from some of the defendants.

SF suggests that W put international laws to JT. JT remembers W mentioning Bruce Clark and W suggested that JT speak to Clark about this. JT says that he understood that Clark wasn't available because he was under psychiatric evaluation.

SF suggests that the idea that the natives have lost their language is incorrect because JT heard W speak his language. JT agrees that W spoke his language. SF suggests that the natives haven't lost their culture because W was standing up for their rights to maintain their culture. JT says that some native groups have lost their language and culture.

SF suggests that they lost these things because of the presumption of the police and governments that they have jurisdiction over unceded land. J says that this is an argument for the jury. JT does recall W saying that "the Law Society did not have jurisdiction" and that there was no need to put in a land claim because the land already belongs to them. He recalls W saying that they had an inherent right to that land.

SF suggests that even after bullets and bombs had been directed at W, he was still explaining to JT that the native rights still existed. JT recalls W saying that he still had native rights. SF asks if natives do have existing rights in this country. J says that she's sure she can appreciate that this is a question of law. SF says that JT had told W that the natives had been oppressed and she wants to know who he believes oppressed the people. JF objects. SF says that JT brought it up and she wants to know why he said it. J says that they could have a lengthy debate about it, but it wouldn't be of assistance to the jury.

SF notes that JT can't give all his opinions to the court nor his ideas of the law, but asks him if during his interview with W, did he note that W had urgent and reasonable concerns regarding civil rights. J says that JT can only comment on what W said - he can't say whether they were urgent or reasonable. SF asks JT if he recalls W saying that the cowboys had threatened to hang some red skinned niggers. JT does recall W saying this. SF wonders if W had said that this is why he had gone there because of his legal knowledge and to protect his friend. JT says that W had said that Percy had asked for his help and because of his knowledge of the law.

SF says that genocide is committed when one group causes mental or bodily harm against another group. She asks if W spoke of this, but JT doesn't recall this.

SF wants to note that JT is the first officer who actually took the time to listen and to look at the historical context of what happened and that he took into consideration the rights of the land. SF says she appreciates this, as W would have. SF suggests that W said that he was defending himself and his people. JT doesn't believe W used those words - the word "defending".

SF suggests that JT got the sense from W that he wanted the rights observed and that this would happen when the laws would be addressed. JT says that W did mention that there were existing native rights. SF has no more questions and thanks JT.

JT leaves and nods to W as he leaves. W gives JT a partial, reluctant nod. After JT leaves, W says to SF, "Good job Shelagh."

JF - Next witness: Cst. Dan Russell (DR) is back on the witness stand - DR says that he was working with Cst. Toogood. They both interviewed Wolverine on Sept. 19. DR identifies W in the courtroom. DR says that he took notes while Toogood spoke. DR says that he spoke to W for about three or four minutes, but did not write down what he was saying.

Interview began at 10:51 a.m. At quarter to one, DR says that he asked W if he was there to kill cops or was he there to protect the land. DR checks his notes to refresh his memory of what W said. DR asked W if he felt that the RCMP were trying to kill him. W said he didn't know. DR said that the media had been badmouthing the camp. DR asked why they were carrying guns. W said because the cops had fired thousands of rounds. W said that a woman had been hit near him.

W didn't know if he had fired at APCs. DR said that the APC crew had seen him, but W said that he didn't know. W said this would all come out in court. W asked for Clark, but DR said he was being evaluated. W said that his case had gone in front of the U.N. W said that he hadn't fired at police. W said that the weapons there were .22s and .303. DR asked if there were any machine guns there. W said he didn't know what a machine gun was. DR says he showed a picture to W of W carrying a weapon. W asked if that was a machine gun. HR stands up to note that there were no machine guns found there, only a sporterized AK-47.

DR describes where they all sat in the interview room. DR says that W was very angry - at times raising his voice. DR says it was clear that W was very angry at himself and Toogood.

HR - DR agrees that he made a lot of notes. HR asks if DR's recollection of the interview was much the same as Toogood's. DR agrees that Toogood looked at DR's notes. HR suggests that this made Toogood's notes an intermixture of DR's and Toogood's notes. DR doesn't know. He can only say that DR never looked at Toogood's notes.

HR asks if DR put forward the idea that they were sympathetic to the native cause. DR agrees that this was something both he and Toogood put forward to sound sympathetic. DR recalls that W asked for Bruce Clark and Ramsey Clark. His notes continue that "W blathers on" about his inherent rights. DR agrees that "blathers" meant that W was repeating over and over again the same point. HR suggests that this was a derogatory term, that "blather" means to repeat endlessly in a boring manner. DR says he doesn't know the dictionary definition. He only meant that W repeated himself.

DR wrote that W spoke "garbage about Glen Kealey and the Trilaterals." DR said that he called it garbage because it had nothing to do with the interview. DR says that he has never said that he was sympathetic to W - he was only trying to make himself sound sympathetic. HR asks if his other officer was sympathetic. JF objects. HR says that it's an old technique to have a "good guy and a bad guy to extract information." DR says that this is a very old technique. HR suggests that DR played an updated version of this game and that Toogood was the good guy and DR was the bad guy. DR disagrees.

MB/ Before the jury comes in, Grant goes and shows his new leather jacket to Wolverine. The jacket has a large red and white Canadian flag on the back with the word "CANADA" underneath. Grant has modified it. There is now a patch in the middle of the Canadian flag. The patch has a native person with a Canadian flag over his mouth and the words: "Canada - A nation built on genocide".

HR cont'd with Cst. Russell - HR reads from DR's notes, which say, "rambles on about the U.N. crap". DR says that he didn't feel this was relevant to the questions he had asked. HR suggests that this is a way of denigrating W. DR denies this, saying that he wrote this to remind himself of what was said. DR says that he was trying to hurry and catch up to Toogood's questions, so he'd catch the relevant things. HR asks if DR and Toogood had gotten together to bait W. DR claims he doesn't know what that means, but does say that the two had agreed that Toogood would do most of the talking and DR would do most of the writing. At this time, DR had known Toogood for about a week. Sgt. Shakey had sent DR out there. DR says that he had a meeting at 7:30 a.m. in 100 Mile House and was instructed to assist Toogood in Williams Lake.

He arrived in Williams Lake at 10:30 and the interview began at 10:50. DR says he had photographs which he was going to show W. DR got the photographs from video seized from the CBC. DR believes he showed the photographs to Toogood, but isn't sure. He had no profiles of W. DR says that he was pretty clear what W's role was at the standoff based on the negotiations that had taken place. DR agrees that he knew something about W and didn't arrive totally blank. DR believes that Toogood had some knowledge of W's role. DR denies discussing with Toogood what was going to be said. The only thing they were going to do was have Toogood keep the conversation going.

HR suggests that DR had a contempt for W, but DR denies this. He says that W was saying things that weren't relevant and that's why he wrote things like "blathering." HR: "I may be described as a blatherer too and I'm going to repeat this question a number of more times." DR repeats that he wrote that W blathered because he repeated himself. DR felt the U.N. stuff that W spoke of was crap. DR says that W said that the police didn't have jurisdiction and that he had issues turned down by the U.N. in the past. DR says that this had nothing to do with what they were talking about - the criminal acts against the Canadian Criminal Code.

HR suggests that DR denied W legal counsel, but DR denies this. DR says that he believed that Clark did need psychiatric help. He is not aware if Clark actually got any treatment. HR suggests that a person may have a position that isn't popular and may be obnoxious, but unless he is under treatment, he is considered quite sane. JF objects. J agrees. HR asks if DR didn't think it was necessary for him to go to a superior to see if Clark was available. DR said he understood that Clark was being charged for assault in a courtroom. HR asks if a person is guilty just because he is charged. DR agrees that he didn't ask superiors about this. Toogood didn't do this either. DR agrees that W asked for Clark five times during the interview.

DR says that during the interview, he and Toogood determine when a person is telling the truth. When they feel that a person has told the truth, then that is when they conclude the interview. HR suggests that when W requests the U.N. and says that the police have no jurisdiction, DR thought it was fiction. DR says that he can only say what W said.

DR agrees that after the interview, he wrote up his notes. Toogood looked at DR's notes, but DR didn't see Toogood's notes until last Friday. DR says that he never saw Toogood's notes when he prepared the report to Crown Counsel. HR asks why DR didn't note everything in his notebook, like "blather" and "crap", into the summary to Crown Counsel. DR says that a summary of the Crown is only made up of the basic facts, not everything.

DR doesn't know if Toogood's position on the atrocities against natives is genuine or not. DR says he agrees with some of the ideas, but not all of them. He doesn't believe that the U.N. has anything to do with it.

DC - Regarding the "U.N. crap", DC asks DR if he realizes that the U.N. is charged with investigating breaches of human rights. DR doesn't know what they are charged with. DC asks what he thinks the U.N. does to make it crap. DR says that it had nothing to do with what they were talking about. DC: "If you don't know what the U.N. does, how do you know it doesn't have anything to do with what you're talking about?" DR confirms that W had said that he had testified to the U.N. DC asks if DR doesn't realize that to get to speak to the U.N., you don't get to do that if you "blather on", "talk garbage", or talk about "U.N. crap". DR maintains that this had nothing to do with criminal action during the standoff and was also not about land claims.

DR agrees that all he wanted W to do was speak about events at Gustafsen Lake that would assist the police and the Crown gather evidence against him. DC suggests that DR would get W to speak and would then ferret out only damning evidence. DR: "I was looking for the truth, or what I believed to be the truth at the time."

GW - DR agrees that he told W that the media was badmouthing him, but says that he didn't really believe what he told W. GW suggests that DR lied to W. DR says that he just didn't believe what he said. GW says that DR has trouble with the word "lie" and won't give him a straight answer. DR denies this. GW starts again and asks if DR lied to W. DR agrees that he lied. GW: "See, that's easy now, isn't it?"

GW suggests that DR lied to get a reaction from W. DR agrees that he lied to get W to speak about what happened. GW asks if he would lie to a white man in a three piece suit. DR says that he would say things to make people think he is sympathetic with them so they will speak. GW suggests that DR began the interview by lying and that DR has no moral trouble lying. DR says that he was trying to find out information. DR doesn't know what lying means to a native person and agrees that he normally works in a predominantly white area.

DR says that when he is in a room with someone, he is the only one who can determine when someone is speaking the truth. He agrees that he is not an expert psychologist from an established university. GW suggests that DR has no scientific experience to determine the truth. He is not a polygraph expert, not a psychologist, not a psychiatrist, etc. (DR's shoulders are beginning to slump.)

DR agrees that he knew that Suniva had been shot in the arm when he interviewed W. DR agrees that he had spoken to the officer who had shot at the camp area and that the officer understood that someone had been hit because he saw a red substance on the person. GW notes that W had said that he was close to the woman who got hit. DR agrees that he was wondering about the truth of this, but admits that he never followed up this line of questioning. GW suggests he did this to only hear what he wanted to hear and would close himself off to anything he didn't want to hear. DR says that they asked W what happened during the standoff and W wouldn't say anymore.

DR agrees that he never followed up any leads that he got by inspecting the scene. DR says that the senior investigator was Insp. Bass and that he would have been the one to assign investigators.

SF - DR agrees that W asked for Ramsey Clark, but DR never tried to find Ramsey for him. DR says that he gave W the opportunity to make any calls he wanted. DR agrees that W said that Ramsey was the former Attorney General of the U.S. during the Johnson administration. SF suggests that W asked for two people and DR denied him access to Bruce Clark and didn't try to contact Ramsey for him. DR says that the phone was available to W to make long distance calls.

DR didn't believe that the media was slamming the camp by calling them terrorists. DR didn't know that Olfert had gotten on TV calling the people in the camp terrorists. DR didn't know that Bruce Clark had tried to bring hate crime charges against the RCMP. SF suggests that the Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer in B.C. and DR agrees. SF has a letter from Ramsey Clark to Dosanjh which she wants to read to DR. JF objects if this has something to do with the hate crimes. SF says this has nothing to do with Bruce Clark. This letter came from Ramsey Clark. JF objects and asks the J to instruct SF not to continue this questioning.

J says that SF is not a lawyer and he is being lenient with her. J says that this letter is not admissible through this witness. SF thinks that what Ramsey Clark writes is important, but J says that she has his ruling.

SF asks if DR believed that the RCMP had the jurisdiction to come on the land. J says that there will be many officers who will come on to the stand, but their opinions of the law will not assist the jury. SF asks if she can ask DR if he felt he had the personal jurisdiction to question W. J says DR's opinion on the law cannot be asked for.

DR says again that he wasn't aware that Dosanjh had said on TV that the people in the camp were terrorists. He doesn't know if all 400 police officers were involved in investigating events at Gustafsen Lake. SF asks if DR sees nothing wrong with the police coming on to the land to remove people from it. J doesn't allow the question.

DR says that he was sympathetic with some of the issues that W mentioned, but not all of them. W: "He's afraid of the trough being taken away." JF objects that SF's question is too broad. DR says that he was sympathetic with the troubles of the residential schools. SF asks if DR was making use of his understanding of this history when he stripped JoJo. DR maintains that he never stripped JoJo - he seized his clothing - and that the residential schools were never discussed with JoJo.

SF suggests that they were playing a game talking to W. DR says he wasn't playing a game. He admits that he was make-believing that he was sympathetic with W's issues.

W interjects to say that no one wants to deal with native land issues at the U.N. level so these issues won't be brought out.

SF asks DR's opinion if the law will ever be addressed. J says that this is a debating point that SF can bring up to the jury.

W interjects again and says that they don't want to address the laws as they should be addressed. Their Indian rights are entrenched and still exist.

SF has no more questions for the witness, though she wants to bring up some points with the J. J says that she can do this at a later time. He dismisses the witness and the jury.

GW - notes that the remaining witness list is short and it looks like the schedule is made up of a number of half days and he'd like to see some scheduling changes to speed the trial up. JF explains that it is just the way the witnesses are available. J hopes that the counsels can get together to speed things up.

   * Monday, November 11 - no court      * Day 75: Thursday, November 14
   * Day 73: Tuesday, November 12        * Day 76: Friday, November 15
   * Day 74: Wednesday, November 13