My Reapplication For Appeal Letter
Reply to Chief Constable on dismissal of complaint
Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner
Suite 900, 1111 Melville Street
Vancouver, BC V6E 3V6
November 29,1999
Vancouver Police Dept.
Re: Missing Person - Angela Jardine
Police File 98.286097
To Acting Chief Constable xxxx
This letter is in regard to a complaint I filed July 28, 1999 that was Summarily
Dismissed November 3, 1999 in which I received by registered mail November 8/99.
Under subsection 54 (4) of the BC Police Act the complainant may reapply for
a review of the decision..
I am requesting a review of my complaint. I am dissatisfied with the decision
and find the response is inadequate.
The complaint that I make raises issues in my view that fall within the definition
of a breach of " Public Trust Default ". It is defined in the BC Code of Professional Conduct Regulations as: " disciplinary
defaults " under 4 (b) Neglect of Duty for the purposes of section 4 (1) (b), a police officer commits the disciplinary default of neglect of duty if :
( ii ) perform his or her duties as a police officer.
I feel this officer did not do a proper or thorough investigation. It appears
this officer did not exercise his discretion in response to do a timely investigation.
I believe there was not a reasonable investigation conducted regarding our daughter
Angela Jardine.
Attached are copies of my complaint and the response letter. I have numbered
each paragraph of the response letter in order. I have addressed each of the concerns
I am not satisfied with.
Paragraph #1
The missing persons report by Angela’s social worker, was received by the Missing
Persons Section December 7/98. The caseworker would not have filed a missing person report unless she was certain
something happened to our daughter. One phone call to Angela’s caseworker or any
other caseworker at the Interministerial Society would have verified this. Even
the secretary would have been able to enlighten the detective. It would have been
enough information to warrant an investigation of the disappearance of our daughter.
This was neglected to be done.
There are many discrepancies to this paragraph. It states " that day the sergeant told the detective that he had seen Angela on the front
steps of the police department within the last two weeks. The last two weeks of what month? Was it November? Then this is accurate. The
caseworker and others can verify this was the last time Angela was seen or heard
from was near the end of November 98. This is the reason the 911 call was placed
by the staff at the Portland Hotel. One call to the staff at the Portland Hotel
would have verified discrepancies. The staff at the Portland Hotel were extremely
concerned about Angela’s disappearance and placed the 911 call.
In the same paragraph it mentions Angela’s caseworker advised the detective she had seen Angela four days ago. Four days ago of what month? Is it November or December? We know for a fact
it wasn’t December as the caseworker filed a report Dec.7/98 to the Missing Persons
Section. My daughter Angela gave Social Services permission if anything should
happen to her I be notified. I was notified by the caseworker the second week
of December 1998. She phoned and told me " as a parent I have the right to know something has happened to my daughter".
In this paragraph it states the sergeant told the detective that he had seen Angela again on December 15/98
outside the police station. The detective based his opinion our daughter was still in the vicinity from
this observation. Even though the person Angela was closest to was her caseworker
and she had not seen or heard of Angela since the end of Nov.98. The detective
also assumed there was no cause to phone the caseworker or the staff at the Portland
Hotel to verify Angela’s disappearance. The detective conclusions appear to be
assumptions of an individual ( the sergeant ) whom may have been in a hurry or
not really paying attention and saw a person resembling our daughter. Based on
this, the detective did not exercise his discretion to conduct an investigation.
From this statement the detective concluded not to bother to pursue the investigation
of our daughter, nor notify me of her disappearance because of a casual sighting
by a colleague.
Paragraph #2
The detective says he maintained regular contact with the Portland Hotel and
Social Services to determine if Angela had returned or picked up any money.
I would like to challenge this entire statement by the detective. I feel it is not accurate nor factual. The people who manage the Portland Hotel
( Mark Townsend and Liz Evans ) do not recall having any contact with this detective.
Liz Evans does not know what he looks like or how his voice sounds. Mark Townsend
has no recollection of meeting or discussing Angela with this detective. I would
like to know how a detective conducts an investigation without interviewing pertinent
people such as, Mark Townsend, Liz Evans or Angela’s caseworker? I am aware of
the female detective going to the Portland Hotel for the first time in late February
/99. This was long after Angela had disappeared. This person was not her partner.
As for keeping in regular contact with social services the detective would have
had to check with the St.James social services through which Angela’s welfare
money was administered through. If the detective would have done this he would
have known Angela collected no money past November 20/98. This was extremely odd
for Angela not to receive her money. The caseworkers would have verified this
fact.
The caseworker did not have an interview with any detectives regarding Angela
prior of March 16/99. She has informed me on several occasions the last time she
saw Angela was the near the end of November,1998. These are very important people
in Angela’s life that may have been able to shed light on Angela’s disappearance.
Paragraph #3
he detective states that he did not personally inspect Angela’s room or belongings.
The detective 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. This is another statement I wish to challenge. The staff at the Portland Hotel do not recall having any contact with this detective.
How was he able to arrive at this conclusion? This matter was discussed with the
female detective upon her visit to the Portland Hotel as I mentioned in my last
paragraph late in February/99.
The staff at the Portland Hotel are not professional people trained in criminal
scenes or investigations. How would they know what is amiss or what is not? How
would they conclude there wasn’t anything in the room to indicate where Angela
might be? These are all very reasonable questions that have not been answered
satisfactorily.
Paragraph#4
There was some delay in issuing the missing persons posters. There was a delay
in Angela’s poster because of the reported sightingsThe sightings were all of another person. Anyone familiar with our daughter knew
it was not her. A reputable constable and many others were aware it was not our
daughter roaming the downtown eastside. Thankfully, this constable was very open
and directed me to the person who was in charge of our daughter’s case. This was
on January 19/99, and that individual was the detective in question. Once a new photo was received the posters were redone. After repeated phone calls from me reminding the detective about them.
Paragraph#5
In his duty report the detective 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. I would like to know whom the detective considered a valuable source of information
for these sightings? Other drug users, or people incapacitated in some way. Our
daughter was very obvious because of her behavior and loud mannerisms. She could
not be mistaken easily with people that actually knew her. I tried many times
to convey my feelings to both detectives that there could well be other women
that looked like Angela. Angela was a generic looking person, brown hair, brown
eyes, 5’5’. How many women would fit this description? Why would these sightings
delay an investigation of our daughter?
Paragraph#6
The detective denies ever telling you to " take the cases, take all the cases..."
I heard what I heard. I cannot dispute this fact. It is noted in my records.
Paragraph#7
In the female detective’s 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 25/99 she says you indicated that you did not have a problem with
the investigation. Regarding the conversation Feb.25/99 the female detective returned my call.
As to my notes the conversation began with the subject of a man portraying himself
as my daughter’s stepfather and requesting her belongings from the Portland Hotel.
I obtained this information from Mark Townsend. Mark had mentioned this man had
assaulted Angela, and was prohibited from the Portland Hotel because of his abusive
nature. This was all very shocking to me as the detective never informed me of
this information. He gave me the man’s name and phone number. This individual
had contacted me on several occasions about Angela that had been rather upsetting.
I mentioned my concern regarding the phone calls from this man to the constable
from the downtown eastside.
This was also the first time I had spoken to this female detective and she was
very cordial. Referring to my notes the conversation entailed the following: the
female detective offered me the names of several family members for me to contact
if I wished. She mentioned it may be premature to mention this to you but Maggie
DeVries is planning a memorial service in May for the women that have gone missing
or have died in the Eastside. I also inquired if a new missing person poster was
made yet. She wasn’t sure as it was her partner’s case. She informed me that they
are just about finishing compiling all the missing women on a web site to be put
on the internet. I asked her the web address, she wasn’t sure of the address.
She informed me of a newspaper article Lindsay Kynes of the Vancouver Sun had
written, and it would be in the following day newspaper. She also pointed out
to me it was her partner’s case. I did not feel comfortable talking to her about
someone she worked with and the lack of investigation to place her in an awkward
position.
Paragraph 8
My next conversation with the female detective was March 19/99 approx. 1:15pm.
This conversation we discussed Serena Abbotsway. I called to inform her I found
Serena’s location and phone number for the police to look at Serena’s face. This
was the woman people had been mistaking for Angela since she disappeared. I was
told by her " regardless what I might think, we are doing our job". We know you’re being
very critical of her partner’s work. She also mentioned she doesn’t know what I expect, you don’t keep us informed,
everyone is aware you’re not happy, you’re talking to the media about us. I informed
her I haven’t been speaking to the media lately and I’m not being overly critical
of the work being done. I’m a concerned parent and I want to know what has happened
to my daughter. I asked her if Angela’s dental records were requisitioned by the
police yet. She told me she was sure her partner was on top of it. I spoke previously
to Angela’s dentist March 19/99 approx.10:20am and he had not received any calls
pertaining to Angela’s dental records. The female detective asked me if Angela’s
dentist was in Sparwood. I gave her the name and phone number of the dentist in
the downtown Eastside of Vancouver. I also informed her the date of Angela’s last
examination and x-ray. If offering information is considered being difficult and
asking reasonable questions is perceived as difficult then I do not understand
the terminology.
Paragraph #9
The female detective says she called you on June 17/99 to discuss the meeting
of the families of the missing women and that you were unable to attend. She suggested
that Sarah Levine attend in your absence, you disagreed and wanted Mark Townsend. The reason I did not want Sarah Levine at the meeting was because she is a stranger.
Sarah Levine is a casual worker at the Portland Hotel. She happened to be on shift
the day the 911 call was made. It was decided Sarah Levine make the call. I have
never had any conversations with Sarah Levine. She was a stranger and still is
a stranger. Just because this individual placed a 911 call does not make her a
friend, or family member. She then told me she did not want Mark Townsend at the
meeting. I asked why and she told me because she finds him very difficult to deal
with and I know the other family members feel the same way. I found this remark
as bewildering as how would the other family members know Mark? I let it go, I
did not argue or was disrespectful as to why Mark was not able to attend. This
was also a cordial phone call. It was a stressful time and I did not want an argument.
I am able to make available a tape of this conversation if needed.
Paragraph#10
The female detective indicates she spoke to you about the meeting sometime around
June 22/99 in which she advised you that the meeting was by invitation only and
the proxy you sent had no legal weight. She states " the quotation Mrs. Jardine
attributes to me is in no way accurate". She returned my call June 22/99 approx. 3:20pm. I am able to make available
a tape of this particular conversation.
Paragraph#11
The female detective met the UBC student you refer to in your letter at the meeting. This person is a student at UBC doing research for a thesis concerning the missing
women. This individual is not a common-law partner. This was said to gain entry
into the meeting.
I would like to know why my question regarding the delay of entry of Angela’s
data into the RCMP ViCLAS was not responded to? The Vancouver Police Department
Internal Policy is sixty days for a detective to report to ViCLAS. Why was this
not done until March 4/99? By coincidence Angela was entered into ViCLAS the following
day after the Vancouver Sun newspaper had a large poster of all the missing women
from the downtown Eastside. It is also the responsibility of the detective in
charge of the case to fill out the ViCLAS book and not give it to some else to
fill out.
I would like to say because I am the only person that has filed a complaint is
completely and totally irrelevant.
In conclusion the preliminary investigation did not adequately address all my
concerns that I raised in my initial complaint. Given the seriousness of my complaint
I feel it merits a full and thorough investigation.
Respectfully Yours,
Deborah Jardine
Note: I applied for a review of my complaint December 1/99 after it was summarily
dismissed November 3/99 by the Internal Investigation Section. I was notified
in the letter I had thirty days to request a review of the decision. I applied
again and it was rejected faster than the first letter of dismissal. I exhausted
the complaint process. The only other alternative would be to seek legal counsel.
That would entail an extremely costly and lengthy litigation against the Vancouver
Police Department.
My Quest
My Complaint to Police
Office of Police Complaint Commissioner
My Reapplication for Appeal
For The Love of a Daughter
Thesis by Michelle Weflen
Vanished Voices Directory
Website Graphic and content
are copyright
© VanishedVoices.ca, 2001-2008
All Rights Reserved