Letter from the
Office of Police Complaint Commissioner
November 3rd 1999
Mrs. Deborah Jardine
Sparwood BC
V0B 2G0
Received Nov.12, 1999 Office of Complaint Commissioner
Dear Mrs. Jardine:
Sergeant xxx was assigned to investigate your letter of complaint dated July
28th 1999.
Sergeant xxx obtained duty reports from both of the officers that you have complained
about.
These officers were concerned that you were not satisfied with the investigation
into your daughter's disappearance. They readily supplied the information to Sergeant
xxx in the hope that it would alleviate some of your distress over this situation.
Detective xxx indicated that it was difficult to address all of your concerns
but attempted to explain what he could.
The missing person's report by Angela's social worker, Eileen xxx, was received
by the Missing Persons Section December 7th 1998. That day Sergeant xxx told Detective xxx that he had seen
Angela on the front steps of the police department within the last two weeks.
Also, Eileen xxx advised detective xxx that she had seen Angela again December
15th outside of the police station. Because of these sightings Detective xxx felt
that Angela's disappearance was by her own design and that's why you were not
notified.
Detective xxx says he maintained regular contact with the Portland Hotel and
Social Services to determine if Angela had returned or picked up any money. By
the time Detective xxx felt that Angela's sightings could be erroneous you had
contacted him. Detective xxx indicates that he would have not been so abrupt as
to have citied the fact that you were not contacted was because Angela is an adult.
The person that Angela was closest to was Eileen xxx and she could not supply
any more information or name any of Angela's associates.
Detective xxx states that he did not personally inspect Angela's room or belongings.
Detective xxx indicates that the Portland Hotel staff had been through the room
and did not find anything amiss or anything to indicate where Angela might be.
There was some delay in issuing the missing persons posters. Apparently, missing
person posters are not prepared in the initial stages of an investigation. There
was a delay in Angela's poster because of the reported sightings. Detective xxx
denies saying to you that he had not gotten around to it yet.
Detective xxx believes he advised you that there was a delay because of the sightings.
The original photo was from the police departments identification section. Once
a new photo was received the posters were redone.
In his duty report Detective xxx indicates that there have been numerous sightings
of Angela from people that are familiar with her and that all these sightings
(where possible) were checked.
Detective xxx denies ever telling you to take the cases, take all the cases.
However, he does admit to being frustrated with the twenty-one cases he was investigating
and this may have been reflected (unintentionally) in his voice.
In Detective Constable xxxx duty report she indicates that you were difficult
to deal with and she only learned of your dissatisfaction third hand. When she
called you February 25th 1999. Detective xxxx says you indicated that you did
not have a problem with the investigation.
Detective xxxx states, I take issue with Mrs. Jardine's perception and recollection
of contact with me on almost every point she raises.
Detective xxxx says she asked you about Serena xxxxx who she believed was the
person people were mistaking Angela for. You also discussed Detective xxx involvement
and you said you understood and that your concerns had been addressed.
Detective xxxx says she called you on June 17th, 1999 to discuss the meeting
of the families of the missing women and that you were unable to attend. Detective
xxxx suggested that Sarah xxxxx attend in your absence, you disagreed and wanted
Mark Townsend. Detective xxxx did not want Mr. Townsend because she believed he
can be confrontational and this would be inappropriate at such a meeting. Mr.
Leng e-mailed Detective xxxx and told her he was attending for you. Because of
a relationship, with one of the missing women that Mr. Leng had, detective xxxx
and family members felt this was also inappropriate.
Detective xxxx indicates she spoke to you about the meeting sometime around June
22, 1999 in which she advised you that the meeting was by invitation only and
the proxy you sent had no legal weight. Detective xxxx states the quotation Mrs.
Jardine attributes to me is in no way accurate.
Detective xxxx met the UBC student you refer to in your letter at the meeting.
She was allowed to attend because she is the common law partner of the sister
of one of the missing women.
In her report Detective xxxx states, I sympathize with Mrs. Jardine and I understand
her family has suffered a great and deep loss. I have tried very hard to be not
only a thorough investigator on these files, but also a comfort to these families
and a reassuring influence. We are doing all we can to find these women. This
file has been treated with the same diligence and care as all the others assigned
to me. At no time have I been nonchalant or belligerent and I have attempted to
be courteous in the face of Mrs. Jardine's comments and perception of events.
Both Detective xxx and Detective Constable xxxx have exemplary ploice careers.
To my Knowledge, yours is the only complaint received from any of the families
of the missing women.
Detective xxx has transferred out of the Missing Persons Review Team and Detective
xxxx has taken over your daughter's file.
The information you provided us in your letter of complaint will remain on our
files. From this information it does not appear that further investigation by
the Vancouver Police Internal Investigation Unit would produce evidence of a BC
Police Act Disciplinary Default by Detective xxx or detective Constable xxxx.
Under section 54 (1)(b) of the BC Police Act the discipline authority (police
chief or designate) may summarily dismiss a public trust complaint if there is
no reasonable likelihood that further investigation would produce evidence of
public trust default. Therefore, your complaint has been summarily dismissed.
If you are not satisfied with the summary of dismissal of your complaint you
may apply to the office of the Police Complaint Commissioner for a review of this
decision. This request must be filed within thirty days of this letter.
Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner
900 1111 Melville Street, Vancouver, BC V6E 3V6
Fax: (604) 660-1223 Telephone (604) 660-2385
Yours truly,
Inspector #660 J.Eldridge
1/c Internal Investigation Section
Vancouver Police Department
(I would like to make a couple of comments regarding this reply letter before
we continue to my Reapplication for a review of my complaint. )
What I found interesting was the rebuttal from Detective Constable xxxx and her
very unclear comments.
This Detective xxxx states on APB news and is quoted " Once we get a report we
start an investigation to find out who is in their lives, what their patterns
are, are they contacting family, have they picked up welfare cheques."
There is also another quote from this same Detective when on a Vancouver radio
show.
This detective states her opinion about the RCMP ViCLAS data entry booklet.
A caller phoned in and asked her what the procedure is regarding a missing person.
She answered, "We wait a week or two if they have been missing.
In regard to filling out the ViCLAS book we don't do it right away (A) saves
paper (B) saves time. We would rather devote time to immediate concerns while
the trail is still warm."
My Quest
My Complaint to Police
My Reapplication for Appeal
For The Love of a Daughter
Thesis by Michelle Weflen
Vanished Voices Directory
Content are copyright ©
VanishedVoices.ca, 2001-2008
All Rights Reserved