There are good reasons why a man’s spouse is responsible for the worst mass shooting Her lawyer says she should not face cross-examination in modern Canadian history when she testifies before a public inquiry on Friday.
James Lockyer told his client on Thursday, Lisa BanfieldNot to be struck again by lawyers who were determined to unearth conspiracy theories about what happened on April 18-19, 2020. Gabriel Wortman 22 people died in a 13-hour stampede in Nova Scotia.
The Toronto lawyer said some lawyers representing the victims’ families are eager to ask Banfield how she managed to escape her deranged partner and stampede on a bitterly cold night in the woods around Portapique, NS. The first night survived.
“Some lawyers, one or two of them, have been very exaggerating in their statements,” Lockyer said in an interview with the Canadian Press.
“They want to cross-examine her about some aspects of her trauma without stating their goals that night. And their goals, when you think about it, may just be conspiracy-theoretic targets.”
Lockyer said the purpose of raising questions about Banfield’s whereabouts would be to challenge his credibility and suggest that he may have spent the night elsewhere, which he calls absurd.
“These mass casualties, especially (the ones) we’ve seen south of the border, give rise to conspiracy theorists,” Lockyer said. “We don’t need it in Canada. We don’t need it in Nova Scotia. I think the commission should be congratulated for not being willing to entertain it.”
Lawyer Michael Scott, whose firm represents 14 of the victims’ families, challenged Locker’s observations of the conspiracy, arguing that the investigation’s decision to limit the questioning cast doubts about Banfield’s testimony. Will go
“Very good questions can be asked about how she survived the night,” Scott said Thursday. “And by arranging a process where no one is allowed to ask reasonable questions, it promotes conspiracy theories.”
Three commissioners overseeing the federal-provincial investigation recently decided that Banfield would not face cross-examination from lawyers representing the victims’ relatives, mainly because she may have been subjected to the violence she suffered. He had endured.
The investigation found evidence that Banfield, who had a 19-year relationship with Wortman, was the victim of a controlling, abusive man who repeatedly beat her. Banfield also told the RCMP and the commission that she was beaten up and threatened just before her husband began killing people at Portapique.
On Thursday, the commission issued written reasons for its decision to limit Banfield’s inquiry, arguing that the role of a public inquiry is not the same as a trial.
“We have been clear from the outset that this is not an adversarial, trial-like proceeding,” the ruling says. The decision says the commission’s approach “represents the most effective way of gathering evidence to the best of Ms. Banfield.”
Lawyer Sandra McCulloch, who worked at the same firm as Scott, said the inquiry and trial must share a commitment to finding facts.
“As much as we are in a different kind of legal proceedings, we are still in a proceeding where we have credible evidence, and part of having credible evidence is allowing it to be tested,” McCulloch said. “It’s pretty much not going to happen.”
McCulloch is concerned that Banfield will not be asked about his partner’s violent behavior when they were together over that fateful weekend in April 2020.
In an earlier statement, the commission said Banfield could be accompanied by two supporting people and would “address remaining questions relating to the commission’s mandate.”
Earlier this week, the commission released a 100-page document based on evidence provided by Banfield during four interviews with the RCMP and five with the investigation. That document provided a detailed account of the killer’s long history of gender-based violence.
Also, Wednesday’s interrogation showed a 90-minute video recording of the RCMP interview, in which Banfield provided a detailed account of what happened to him on the night of April 18, 2020.
The commission has confirmed that participating attorneys have been invited to submit questions ahead of Banfield’s testimony, and that they may bring further questions on Friday.
Scott has said that his clients have instructed him not to submit written questions to Banfield because doing so would legitimize the flawed process.
Lawyers for some families boycotted the proceedings in May because the investigation stalled the cross-examination of two RCMP staff sergeants who oversaw the initial response to the mass shooting.
Lockyer said his client was feeling apprehensive about appearing before the investigation, which would speak publicly about the tragedy for the first time.
“I know… she says to herself, ‘If I didn’t run away, would I have saved 22 lives?’ And of course she tells herself and always will. The possible answer is that it would have been 23 lives, not 22, but she’s never going to believe it.”
It’s important to remember that Banfield was the first victim of a “mass casualty” incident, he said.
“I don’t think Lisa sees herself as a victim. She is very mindful of those killed and their families. This is going to be a difficult day for her.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published on July 14, 2020.
© 2022 Canadian Press