# Former Soldier's Dreams Crushed by Shooting Accusations - Article



## Bruce Monkhouse

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/19/former-soldiers-dreams-crushed-by-shooting-accusations
     Former soldier's dreams crushed by shooting accusations   

By Chris Doucette ,Toronto Sun 
First posted: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 08:22 PM EDT | Updated: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 09:09 PM EDT 
     

TORONTO - Warren Bate wanted more than anything to be a cop.

But the former Canadian soldier’s dream was shattered two years ago when Durham Regional Police invited him to come in and talk about a job — and instead accused him of attempted murder.

The 35-year-old has lived under a cloud of suspicion ever since because investigators allege they found his old army foot locker — evidence they claim ties him to several shootings.
“I just want my life back,” an emotional Bate said recently after reaching out to the Toronto Sun, believing his only remaining option was to go public with his story.
Bate’s life began to unravel in the fall of 2010.

He had served his country for 12 years as a reservist with the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment, an infantry unit in Cobourg, and was working at General Motors while coaching minor hockey and volunteering as a Big Brother.
But he “wanted more out of life,” so he left GM to pursue his goal of becoming a police officer.
Bate applied to services across the province and returned to college to upgrade his education while waiting for acceptance.
On Oct. 28, 2010, it appeared his dream was coming true.

He arrived home to a message on his answering machine from a woman identifying herself as a constable from Durham’s police recruiting department.
“Warren, I’m calling about your application with us,” the officer said, before asking him to come in and “discuss our recruiting process.”
“I was super excited,” Bate recalled.
Dressed in his best suit, he walked into a police station the next day unaware that moments later he’d be trapped in a nightmare.
A plainclothes officer asked him, “Do you know why you’re here?”

“I said, ‘I’m here to talk about a possible job with the police,’” Bate recalled. “He said, ‘Not exactly.’ Then he showed me a picture of my old military barracks box (an army-issued foot locker).”
Suddenly he found himself accused of attempted murder, facing questions about the shooting of a pick-up truck on Hwy. 401 and several other gunplay incidents from a few months earlier.

Bate, who has no criminal record, was stunned. He still trembles as he thinks about that moment.
The detective also pulled out a photo of a rifle and told him officers were searching his pick-up truck in the parking lot and others were searching his home.

“I thought they were joking,” Bate said.
Bate, who said he doesn't own any firearms, told the cop he returned his barracks box, along with most of his other kit, when he left the army in 2006.
The only items he was allowed to keep were his uniforms and footwear and he told the officer he had paperwork at home to prove it.

Bate, who is single and has no kids, also pointed out that while his name was still stencilled on the barracks box in the police photo, someone else had added “pink pony stickers” on the side.
But the officer didn’t believe him.
He was told the contents of the barracks box, which included 250 rounds of ammunition and smoke grenades, were “unique” to him.

A “legal aid lawyer” advised him not to answer any questions, but Bate decided to be cooperative, convinced the whole mess could be easily cleared up.
“I knew I hadn’t done anything wrong,” he said.
Bate claims he was “interrogated” by three cops and a military police officer, who alleged he didn’t return any of his gear when he was honourably released.

“They told me I’m leading a double life just like Russell Williams,” he said, referring to the former Canadian Forces colonel who imprisoned for two murders and numerous sex attacks.
Bate claims the officers also made references to his relationship with his Little Brother, telling him people often volunteer with kids “to hide who they really are.”
After six hours of questions, he was allowed to leave.

A few months later, Bate received a letter from Ottawa police telling him his application had been “declined” and he was “prohibited” from applying to other Ontario services for a year.
Durham cops confirmed a barracks box was found in a field and that they are still probing the July 28 shooting of a vehicle on a Hwy. 401 on-ramp at Courtice Rd.
But they refused to comment further or say if Bate remains a person of interest in the case.

“This firearms investigation is open and ongoing,” Sgt. Nancy van Rooy said. “No charges have been laid.”
Despite all he has endured, Bate is reluctant to say anything bad about police. In his heart, he’s hoping he may still get to be a cop some day.
“I know mistakes happen,” he said. “But I wish they would either charge me, so I can defend myself, or clear my name.


----------



## BernDawg

Wow, just wow. It amazes me that the MP jumped on board so fast too. Everyone has drawn kit with somone elses name on it and turned in kit with their name on it too. Tons of the stuff is sold through Crown assets and none of the id is removed unless it was sewn on.  :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:


----------



## ArmyRick

If what he says is true....WTF!? Seriously, a name and SN printed on a barrack box? No crown attorney will ever go to trial with that alone, any half ham defence lawyer could tear that case apart. I hope the police have something more concrete than that?


----------



## jeffb

And they just may. This is only one side of the story so how about we avoid on pile on here against the police who are trying to solve a crime here using whatever leads they have.


----------



## medicineman

jeffb said:
			
		

> And they just may. This is only one side of the story so how about we avoid on pile on here against the police who are trying to solve a crime here using whatever leads they have.



Exactly...

Having said that though, I'd have to say there is a little more to this than meets the eye - every barrack box I've returned had to be ID free and sticker free.   I took the stickers off with solvent and was handed a can of spray paint to cover the ID painted on previously.  :2c:

MM


----------



## Sythen

medicineman said:
			
		

> Exactly...
> 
> Having said that though, I'd have to say there is a little more to this than meets the eye - every barrack box I've returned had to be ID free and sticker free.   I took the stickers off with solvent and was handed a can of spray paint to cover the ID painted on previously.  :2c:
> 
> MM



I've seen more barrack boxes than I can count with names still on them of their previous owners. Usually every summer we'd paint ours to rectify that.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> but Bate decided to be cooperative, convinced the whole mess could be easily cleared up.


HUGE mistake. Even cops don't talk to cops.



> I've spoken to a police detective about something and had the same "RUSSEL WILLIAMS!" boogyman carrot shoved in my face.


I had the same thing, speaking to a detective about something who threw the RUSSEL WILLIAMS boogyman carrot infront of my face.   Dick move.


----------



## Tank Troll

BernDawg said:
			
		

> Wow, just wow. It amazes me that the MP jumped on board so fast too. Everyone has drawn kit with somone elses name on it and turned in kit with their name on it too. Tons of the stuff is sold through Crown assets and none of the id is removed unless it was sewn on.  :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:



I'm not, I've delt with to many MPs that if they can make this case stick (what ever it was at the time) it will make their career.  No offence to our MP brethern on these boards I don't trust you. I've had MPs tell me not to talk to MPs with out; a) a Witness b) a laywer, and I have found this to work quite well.


----------



## fraserdw

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Bate claims the officers also made references to his relationship with his Little Brother, telling him people often volunteer with kids “to hide who they really are.”



Interesting, this article is a good way to dry up volunteerism, if police think that volunteers are more likely to be crooks.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> He was told the contents of the barracks box, which included 250 rounds of ammunition and smoke grenades, were “unique” to him.



To him or to the unit he was in?

There is a lot missing here and something we are not a party too, so I will wait and see.  Although it is not usual for the guilty to seek so much public scrutiny.  The article does demonstrate the growing divide between the average Canadian and our police services particularly in Ontario.


----------



## AmmoTech90

Hate to say it, but cops have a job to do and if they are talking to you the best thing you can do is not say anything.  You are not co-operating with them, you are making their job easier.  Co-operating implies that both sides will benefit.

They perform a vital service, but if you are innocent and being accused of something say nothing and leave as soon as is legally permissible.  Cops are only human and like everyone else, most will pick low hanging fruit.


----------



## dogger1936

I usually roll my eyes when I hear of somebody suing. In this case I would get one of those angry lawyers and sue for every penny I could. Blame me for murder and compare me to that retard Williams...it would put me over the top.


----------



## noneck

Usually one of the final questions asked by an investigator/interviewer, is if the suspect would be willing to take a polygraph. It's also a behavioural observation question (BOQ).....if these police officers are investigating something as serious in nature as it's described, then I would think that this has been offered up.

There is more to this story than the limited information in the article.

Noneck


----------



## The Bread Guy

noneck said:
			
		

> *Usually one of the final questions asked by an investigator/interviewer, is if the suspect would be willing to take a polygraph.* It's also a behavioural observation question (BOQ).....if these police officers are investigating something as serious in nature as it's described, then I would think that this has been offered up.


A bit more on that in another article....





> .... Bate even agreed to a polygraph 10 months after he was “interrogated.”
> 
> “But I wasn’t asked any questions about the barracks box,” he said, adding he was never told the results of the lie detector test.
> 
> In the end, he was allegedly told, "We know you did it. We don’t think you were the triggerman, but we know you know something about this barracks box.” ....





			
				noneck said:
			
		

> There is more to this story than the limited information in the article.


There usually is more in "the truth" than we read in media stories....


----------



## Jarnhamar

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> .... Bate even agreed to a polygraph 10 months after he was “interrogated.”
> 
> “But I wasn’t asked any questions about the barracks box,” he said, adding he was never told the results of the lie detector test.
> 
> In the end, he was allegedly told, "We know you did it. We don’t think you were the triggerman, but we know you know something about this barracks box.” ....



Sounds like some real quality detective work.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Sounds like some real quality detective work.



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

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


----------



## Baloo

So, because this gentleman is one of "our own," he should get a free pass from questioning, despite the fact that something that has certainly, at one point, belonged to him, showed up at the scene of a shooting? I am just going out on a limb, but that would be sloppy police work, not getting one half of the story from an article that clearly has an axe to grind. He's part of an active investigation. Of course he's not getting hired. I've seen people, all good candidates, blown off for less.


----------



## Strike

Baloo said:
			
		

> So, because this gentleman is one of "our own," he should get a free pass from questioning, despite the fact that something that has certainly, at one point, belonged to him, showed up *at the scene of a shooting*? I am just going out on a limb, but that would be sloppy police work, not getting one half of the story from an article that clearly has an axe to grind. He's part of an active investigation. Of course he's not getting hired. I've seen people, all good candidates, blown off for less.



Just as sloppy as assuming things that weren't mentioned in the article?


----------



## Remius

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.


----------



## Baloo

Strike said:
			
		

> Just as sloppy as assuming things that weren't mentioned in the article?



Oh, boy. 

Yes. Yes, that's egg on my face.


----------



## ModlrMike

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

Make sure you remove identifying marks from your kit before turning it in.


----------



## 57Chevy

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> 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

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> 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

medicineman said:
			
		

> 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

GAP said:
			
		

> 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

57Chevy said:
			
		

> "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

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ..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

Haggis said:
			
		

> 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

X Royal said:
			
		

> 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

recceguy said:
			
		

> 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

Crantor said:
			
		

> 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

57Chevy said:
			
		

> "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

Greymatters said:
			
		

> 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

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 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

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> "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

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> 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!


----------



## armyvern

medicineman said:
			
		

> Exactly...
> 
> Having said that though, I'd have to say there is a little more to this than meets the eye - every barrack box I've returned had to be ID free and sticker free.   I took the stickers off with solvent and was handed a can of spray paint to cover the ID painted on previously.  :2c:
> 
> MM



Well, Supply Policy states that all markings shall be removed from Barrack Boxes before we accept them for return at Clothing Stores; exactly why we keep bottles of fingernail polish remover and cans of olive drab spray paint at our front counters. If he returned his barrack boxes upon release, it would certainly show on the CFSS and in his paperwork.

BUT, as demonstrated during the barrack box recall of 6 or 7 years ago, many operational things occur which cause us to recall and forego the removal of markings - back from one troop and handed immediately to another deploying member with repainting to occur at Unit level for deployment. The possibility that it was returned without having the markings removed certainly exists.

It was also demonstrated during that recall that many members have managed to "accrue" extra barrack boxes over and above their two entitled throughout their careers. Some brought 3 or 4 in to us during the recalls, yet only officially had 2 on their docs. So, it is also possible that someone releasing may have more than those on their docs (certainly marked kit if they ever used it to deploy/field etc), but only return the number that they "officially" own and keep the extra post-release. Their docs would show them returning those they "officially owned", but certainly doesn't mean they didn't acquire extras that they didn't return or have marked.

__________________________
My little pony stickers on the "evidence"?? Seriously?? If I were an investigator, I'd be sending out a full colour "Wanted" poster of the barrack box in question to every elementary and middle school in the entire area to shown to each student because you just know somewhere out there, a little girl is going to say, "Hey!! That's my daddies (or mommies) locker and those are my stickers!! Aren't they pretty?"

I guarantee that dude din't return it to Clothing, in any circumstance, with my little pony stickers on it. That either occurred with a subsequent owner, or dude didn't turn it in at all.


----------



## Teeps74

I suppose some units do things differently. Am, was and always a reservist. My boxes came from base clothing. They were tracking my original boxes issued to me in 1993. It is possible they were unit held, and 638s torn an return. 

Still, "we have a box with your name on it..." is pretty flimsy evidence. Lot numbers, natures, check the pay guides... Two years later, I would hope that there is more reason why this fella is paying a price. If he is guilty, come out and make it stick... 

However, innocent until proven guilty is one of those things we get to enjoy in our society. If all they have is the box, then I am afraid that hanging this over his head with nothing else (two years later, that is exactly how it sounds) is neither fair, nor is it in keeping with the spirit of the Charter.


----------



## armyvern

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> 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.



Individual Unit QMs issue barrack boxes out on Temp Loan cards when 3rd ones are required for certain tasks etc (absolutely NORMAL situation) ... only those issued out by 2nd Line Clothing Stores are issued to member's personal docs and thus trackable as being returned. Even then, buddy could have acquired an extra throughout his career that wasn't turned in. It happens; often.

I'm not going to burn off any calories jumping to any sort of conclusion on this one.


----------



## Redeye

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, Supply Policy states that all markings shall be removed from Barrack Boxes before we accept them for return at Clothing Stores; exactly why we keep bottles of fingernail polish remover and cans of olive drab spray paint at our front counters. If he returned his barrack boxes upon release, it would certainly show on the CFSS and in his paperwork.
> 
> BUT, as demonstrated during the barrack box recall of 6 or 7 years ago, many operational things occur which cause us to recall and forego the removal of markings - back from one troop and handed immediately to another deploying member with repainting to occur at Unit level for deployment. The possibility that it was returned without having the markings removed certainly exists.
> 
> It was also demonstrated during that recall that many members have managed to "accrue" extra barrack boxes over and above their two entitled throughout their careers. Some brought 3 or 4 in to us during the recalls, yet only officially had 2 on their docs. So, it is also possible that someone releasing may have more than those on their docs (certainly marked kit if they ever used it to deploy/field etc), but only return the number that they "officially" own and keep the extra post-release. Their docs would show them returning those they "officially owned", but certainly doesn't mean they didn't acquire extras that they didn't return or have marked.
> 
> __________________________
> My little pony stickers on the "evidence"?? Seriously?? If I were an investigator, I'd be sending out a full colour "Wanted" poster of the barrack box in question to every elementary and middle school in the entire area to shown to each student because you just know somewhere out there, a little girl is going to say, "Hey!! That's my daddies (or mommies) locker and those are my stickers!! Aren't they pretty?"
> 
> I guarantee that dude din't return it to Clothing, in any circumstance, with my little pony stickers on it. That either occurred with a subsequent owner, or dude didn't turn it in at all.



Notwithstanding the policy, I went to exchange my barrack box in Gagetown before deploying because mine (which had a great airbrush job on it, as well as stickers) and neither had to remove stickers nor repaint mine, nor was the box I was issued in that condition - it had the name of its previous owner and his unit from a deployment to Bosnia on it.

It sounds (and this is a one-sided article spurned by Bate's approaching the media himself, granted) as though there's not a whole lot of evidence, but DRPS continues to hold this over his head. Nothing about that is okay.


----------



## armyvern

Redeye said:
			
		

> ...



And, as I stated, we had times when ops required us to forego the policy.


----------



## ArmyRick

Back to the issue at hand, I am waiting to see if this guy gets charged or not. As many of us said, thats pretty flimsy evidence. I will be watching this one. Time will tell and if I were a betting man, I will say the guy doesn't get charged.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Personally, if I were trying to clear myself of something like this, or to provoke action on the file, it wouldn't be me giving the interview to the press, it would be my lawyer.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Back to the issue at hand, I am waiting to see if this guy gets charged or not. As many of us said, thats pretty flimsy evidence. I will be watching this one. Time will tell and if I were a betting man, I will say the guy doesn't get charged.



Of course that's like wondering why we can't get convictions in court if we didn't allow the Crown to say anything.


----------



## eurowing

recceguy said:
			
		

> Personally, if I were trying to clear myself of something like this, or to provoke action on the file, it wouldn't be me giving the interview to the press, it would be my lawyer.



Unfortunately, Lawyers are expensive.  Perhaps he is working and can't afford one.


----------



## cupper

eurowing said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, Lawyers are expensive.  Perhaps he is working and can't afford one.



More of a question of can he afford a conviction, even though he could be innocent?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Cops are sadly not above dragging their feet on investigations which cause lawyers to go back and forth racking up a lawyers bill. When each 1 minute phone call costs a poor slob $150 your $2000 retainer gets eaten up pretty fast.  Money to write a letter. Money for a second letter. Money to write a letter requesting a reason why the first 3 letters were ignored.  Cops don't give a shit but someone trying to balance their life pay bills and staying out of jail does.  It's easy to say "well it's better than jail right" but people dot realize how devastating and traumatic a false accusation can be to someone.

I'm very pro police (believe it or not) but that's when police are (to me) ethical and don't pull shit like lying to someone to get them into a police station or lying to them luring them to their kids school.

If the police lie about something it's pretty easy to loose faith in their integrity.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

A recent update from the Toronto Sun. Re-produced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act



> Ex-soldier vows to clear his name 0
> 
> By Chris Doucette ,Toronto Sun
> 
> First posted:  Wednesday, June 20, 2012 07:47 PM EDT  | Updated:  Wednesday, June 20, 2012 08:00 PM EDT
> 
> Former Canadian soldier Warren Bate, 35, claims his dream of becoming a cop has been crushed and his life turned upside down since Durham police wrongly accused him of attempted murder two years ago. (Chris Doucette/Toronto Sun)
> 
> TORONTO -
> 
> Warren Bate knows his dream of becoming a police officer is dead. Now the former Canadian soldier, who claims he has been wrongly accused of attempted murder by Durham Regional Police, just wants his name cleared so he can get on with his life.
> 
> But police are not legally obligated to remove the 35-year-old Bowmanville man from their list of suspects in the shooting of a vehicle on Hwy. 401 and several other gunplay incidents from two years ago.
> 
> “He could remain a person of interest indefinitely,” Toronto lawyer Sandra Zisckind said. “But their suspicion has to be based in some reality.”
> 
> She said the initial investigation into Bate was no doubt “warranted.”
> 
> After finding his old army-issued barracks box in a field filled with ammunition and smoke grenades — and connecting the footlocker to the July 28, 2010, Hwy. 401 shooting — it makes sense police would want to question the veteran, Zisckind said.
> 
> And while it was mean-spirited to ask the aspiring cop to come in to talk about a possible job, then spring an attempted murder allegation on him, she said there’s nothing illegal about that either.
> 
> “Police are allowed to lie as an interrogation tool,” Zisckind said.
> 
> But continuing to consider Bate a suspect after he produced Canadian Forces paperwork showing he returned the barracks box when he was honourably discharged after serving his country for 12 years as a reservist could be deemed “malicious prosecution.”
> 
> The fact the accusations cost Bate a possible policing career, as well as several other job prospects, could even pave the way for a defamation suit, Zisckind said.
> 
> Police claim Bate was never charged with anything so his name won’t show up on CPIC, the computer system used to do criminal background checks.
> 
> And yet, after completing testing and interviews with the Ottawa Police Service, Bate received a letter a few months after being questioned in the shootings that notified him his application was declined and he was prohibited from applying to other Ontario police services for a year.
> 
> A former Toronto officer said it would be easy enough for a service considering hiring Bate to find out if he had baggage that wasn’t in the computer.
> 
> “They would have called his local department and asked if they had ever investigated him,” said the ex-cop, who asked not to be named.
> 
> He said Bate is a prime example of the police saying, “You can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride.”
> 
> Bate alleged two cops and a military police officer spent six hours in October 2010 interrogating him, trying to get him to admit he was involved in the shootings.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> A recent update from the Toronto Sun. Re-produced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act


Here's the link:
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/20/ex-soldier-vows-to-clear-his-name


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Here is some information on the vehicle shooting that Bate is alleged to have committed. The first article is from the Clarington.com website.  The second write-up is from the Durhan Radio News archives. Both are re-produced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Car shot at on 401 in Courtice
> 
> Durham Regional Police are investigating after a bullet struck a vehicle which was entering the Courtice Road westbound on-ramp, at Highway 401 yesterday in Clarington.
> 
> On Wednesday July 29, 2010 at approximately 5:15 p.m. an Oshawa motorist entering the Courtice Road westbound on-ramp to the 401 highway heard a sudden bang and felt his vehicle shake. The driver continued to his destination in Oshawa where he observed a bullet hole in the passenger side door of his black Chevrolet pick-up truck, near to the door hinge. The complainant reported the incident immediately to police. The driver was the only occupant in the vehicle at the time of the incident and was not physically injured.
> 
> Police responded to the vicinity of the fired shot,. However, suspects or further evidence was not located. The investigation continues and police are appealing for information to the identity of the person responsible. There were not any further incidents reported to police. This appears to be an isolated incident and it is not believed that the victim was targeted.
> 
> Last Updated ( Friday, 30 July 2010 00:44 )


  

 Article Link 




> BULLET HITS MOVING VEHICLE
> 
> Posted by news | Filed under All News Stories, Crime, Durham
> 
> Durham police say a stray bullet hit the passenger side door of a pick-up truck, just after 5:00 pm Wednesdat. An Oshawa was on the Courtice Road on-ramp to the westbound 401, when he heard a bang and felt his vehicle shake. The driver was not hurt and police have extracted the bullet fragments. The investigation into where the bullet came from is ongoing.



 Article Link


----------



## Retired AF Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Here's the link:
> http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/20/ex-soldier-vows-to-clear-his-name



Much appreciated.


----------



## mariomike

In today's Sun:

"Former soldier Warren Bate's dream of becoming a cop has been crushed and his reputation ruined by a Durham Regional Police officer who has refused to either charge him or remove him as suspect in an attempted murder.

And now the veteran has been left dangling in the wind by the minister of defence, who he recently turned to for help proving that, seven years ago before he was honourably discharged from the Canadian Forces, he returned his barracks box -- the only evidence linking him to shots fired at a car on Hwy. 401 in 2010."
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/09/former-soldier-left-dangling-by-defence-minister


----------



## Retired AF Guy

More on Mr. Bate's ongoing saga. Re-produced under the usual provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Former soldier left dangling by defence minister
> 
> By Chris Doucette, Toronto Sun
> First posted: Friday, Novemeber 09, 2012 12:33 AM EST | Updated: Friday, November 09, 2012 12:47 AM EST
> 
> Former soldier Warren Bate's dream of becoming a cop has been crushed and his reputation ruined by a Durham Regional Police officer who has refused to either charge him or remove him as suspect in an attempted murder.
> 
> And now the veteran has been left dangling in the wind by the minister of defence, who he recently turned to for help proving that, seven years ago before he was honourably discharged from the Canadian Forces, he returned his barracks box -- the only evidence linking him to shots fired at a car on Hwy. 401 in 2010.
> 
> Bate received a letter from Peter MacKay last month informing him there is actually no record he returned any of his military gear.
> 
> "Bate still has 90 items valued at $4,646.62 that have never been removed from (the Canadian Forces Supply System)," MacKay's letter stated.
> 
> "I couldn't believe it," Bate, who served 12 years as a reservist with the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment, said of MacKay's revelation. "I was stunned."
> 
> Before soldiers can be released they must return their military kit to clothing stores, which Bate vividly remembers doing on Aug. 15, 2005, in Bowmanville, where he lives.
> 
> Once each item is checked off, the military member's Personal Liability Clearance Card is signed. The soldier then presents the PLCC to be released.
> 
> Bate handed over his PLCC and received release papers stating he owes $0 worth of equipment, the only proof he has that he returned his gear.
> 
> But that form wasn't enough to prove his innocence two years ago when his old barracks box -- filled with ammunition, smoke grenades and a disguise -- was allegedly found buried by a man walking through a wooded area north of Hwy. 401 off Bennett Rd., east of Bowmanville.
> 
> Police claim a rifle was also found under a nearby fallen tree.
> 
> It's alleged that rifle was used 10 km west along Hwy. 401 at Courtice Rd. on July 28, 2010, to shoot at a pickup truck.
> 
> Bate, who was recovering from back surgery at the time of the shooting, said he was excited when he received a call Oct. 28, 2010, from an officer claiming she worked in the recruiting office for Durham Regional Police -- one of several services he had applied to.
> 
> But when he showed up at the police station the next day as requested, his dream was shattered by Det. Paul Dobbs, who informed him he was under arrest for attempted murder and other offences.
> 
> After six hours of interrogation, and being accused of "leading a double life just like Russell Williams," Bate was released with no charges.
> 
> But two years later he remains a person of interest.
> 
> As far as he knows, the footlocker with his name, rank, service number and regimental colours emblazoned on the lid is the only evidence tying him to the shooting.
> 
> Bate went public with his story in the Toronto Sun in June, which helped him reclaim his dignity, but didn't clear his name.
> 
> He then contacted his MP John O'Toole, who helped him reach out to MacKay.
> 
> But MacKay only made things worse without offering much of an explanation.
> 
> "The unit erroneously processed his release while the equipment was still on record," MacKay said in his letter. "It's unknown whether this error was committed due to negligence on the unit's part or because the unit was led to believe that the member's records were clear."
> 
> "It is unfortunate that this error was committed in 2005 and that Mr. Bate was released from the Canadian Forces with items still on his records," the minister added.
> 
> MacKay goes on to say Bate should have returned his kit to 8 Wing clothing stores in Trenton.
> 
> But the Sun spoke to half a dozen veterans from Bate's old regiment and none of them returned their gear to CFB Trenton.
> 
> One former fellow Hasty Ps was a "storesman" who spent two years issuing kit to new soldiers and collecting kit from outgoing soldiers.
> 
> "Bate would not have received his honourable release if he had not returned all his issued kit and cleared stores," Andrew Dean said.



 Article Link


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Bate received a letter from Peter MacKay last month informing him there is actually no record he returned any of his military gear.
> 
> "Bate still has 90 items valued at $4,646.62 that have never been removed from (the Canadian Forces Supply System)," MacKay's letter stated.



bullshit.

Were this the case the reserve regiment would have released him 5F and he would be put in credit collections- which I've seen the reserves send someone too for owing that stupid scarf.

We should write letters to Peter MacKey telling him to fire whoever is giving him shit advice.


----------



## dapaterson

Sounds like the unit never did the paperwork properly - someone signed off that the kit was received back, but never entered it into the system of record.

So the MND had staff go into the system of record, it shows Bloggins still owes kit, and voila!

The fault lies not with the person who ran the report for the MND - it lies with the one(s) wh never enetered the data into the system.


----------



## Tank Troll

This happens more times than people know. Since I started doing recruiting for my unit this has come up quite offten especially with former reservist trying to get back in.


----------



## George Wallace

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Sounds like the unit never did the paperwork properly - someone signed off that the kit was received back, but never entered it into the system of record.
> 
> So the MND had staff go into the system of record, it shows Bloggins still owes kit, and voila!
> 
> The fault lies not with the person who ran the report for the MND - it lies with the one(s) wh never enetered the data into the system.



Exact same thing happened when I got out in Pet in 2005.  Turned in my kit, and while doing so was informed I had ten rucksacks on my charge.  Apparantly when they went digital from paper, someone added a zero (typo). Luckily, the Sup Tech was kind enough to correct it at time of Kit Return.  However, that Sup Tech got deployed before they could finish entering my Returns electronically and a few month later, in Edmonton on crse, I was informed I still owed $10,000 worth of kit.  Seems to be a common problem throughout the CF, both Reg and Reserve, that administration is falling apart.


----------



## Jarnhamar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Sounds like the unit never did the paperwork properly - someone signed off that the kit was received back, but never entered it into the system of record.
> 
> So the MND had staff go into the system of record, it shows Bloggins still owes kit, and voila!
> 
> The fault lies not with the person who ran the report for the MND - it lies with the one(s) wh never enetered the data into the system.



Fair enough. I stand corrected thank you.

Now that the mistake is public knowledge the MND should follow up yes?


----------



## ArmyRick

I have seen it happen in some other regiments as well. 20 years ago, with no/minimal use of computers, it was **** simple and easy to clear someone out of the P Res if they had all their kit, ID cards and owed nothing else to the messes, army, etc. 

Now it seems to be a long dragged out ordeal. I was involved with assisting PAT soldiers releasing from the Reg F only 3 years ago and that was dirt simple and easy compared to the process it takes to release from the CF. I even asked a chief clerk how it works and my head was spinning when she explained the paper trail/email trail that goes on (holy bat franks!)...

I have also seen a situation where a soldier did everything to get out and then while waiting the huge release processing time, he received a letter advising him he was NES and could potentially get 5F released. WTF! We need a better admin process for the P Res, pure and simple.


----------



## FJAG

The inaccuracy of supply records is notorious and that has a clear impact in this case. 

In order to obtain a conviction a prosecutor must prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. There have been a few items mentioned in the articles that certainly raise a doubt: The clearance card signed by someone in the unit saying $0.00 kit outstanding, numerous unit personnel stating they did not go to Trenton for kit turn in, a unit person responsible for some two years as a stores clerk dealing with these issues.

One would think that the police would have followed up with this information, interview these various people and confirm or not the story being put forward. Reserve units aren't that big. People should remember a former member with 12 years service and be able to provide either exculpatory or incriminating evidence one way or the other. If the Sun certainly was able to interview a half dozen former soldiers quite quickly.

All too often police get too busy with new cases and old ones tend to languish. As a result folks get left hanging in the wind. 

The MND response has me wondering.  If there is conflicting evidence between his PLCC card and the clothing records I'd want a good explanation of why that was the case. "the unit erroneously processed his release" seems too superficial, too glib. While units do make mistakes, they generally don't sign off a PLCC unless there's a pile of kit sitting on the floor.


----------



## armyvern

FJAG said:
			
		

> ... they generally don't sign off a PLCC unless there's a pile of kit sitting on the floor.



Bang on ... and next to my signature on his PLCC card clearing him out of clothing would be my little serial #'d stamp.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

I'll weigh in a little here as there seems to be a rather large misconception that a mbr must turn in all their kit in order to be release.  This is simply put BS.  There is a section in each AJAG Region called claims for and against the crown. If a soldier doesn't turn in their kit the release process continues. If on the day of release the kit has not yet been turned in the appropriate documents are forwarded to claims for and against the crown for legal action.  The rumours of UNITS sending folks into collections are just that.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Not_So_Arty_Newbie said:
			
		

> The rumours of UNITS sending folks into collections are just that.



Fair enough I didn't mean to imply units send someone to collections themselves but that instead of writing off a scarf they put down that a member still owes it and if they don't pay for it they get released and owe money to the crown.  Various units screw up paperwork all the time.


Either way I still don't think the MND office did their homework very well and they should further look into it because it obviously doesn't jive and in this case a Canadian citizen is getting screwed over by the military AND police at the same time.



edited to remove pers info


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I'm glad you KNOW he's Innocent,....but what else did I expect from you?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm glad you KNOW he's Innocent,....but what else did I expect from you?



Is this to me?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Yup



			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> and in this case a Canadian citizen is getting screwed over by the military AND police at the same time.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Well I'm guessing 'what else would I expect from you' means you feel I always think I'm  right and not open to the possibility I'm wrong, yes?

Surely you're not insinuating I'm anti-police as I've gone on record here supporting them and identifying myself as 'pro-police'.  


I'm basing my opinion of him getting screwed over by the military and police off of him;

having signed paperwork saying he turned his kit in which he was discharged with no further incident
inability to track the lot numbers on the ammunition and smoke grenades with bates (as in him having say been on an exercise in which they were issued)- which is how police tracked down those dudes years ago that threw smoke grenades in the Edmonton mall
recovering from a back injury
not tying him into the rifle that was found through fingerprints or purchase

I'll admit I could be wrong and he could be guilty after all and the police just haven't felt the need to charge him yet, for some reason making it appear that they are just leaving him on the hook.

Being in law enforcement I realize you may be inclined to defend the police and in turn is what I would expect from you.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

But you'd be wrong.
He may very well be innocent, difference is I'm not prepared to hang anybody [ either side] on newspaper articles.

By the way,.....I "turned" in my jump helmet 28 years ago yet somehow it's still sitting on a shelf in my basement......just sayin'.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> But you'd be wrong.
> He may very well be innocent, difference is I'm not prepared to hang anybody [ either side] on newspaper articles.


Fair point, I concede.



> By the way,.....I "turned" in my jump helmet 28 years ago yet somehow it's still sitting on a shelf in my basement......just sayin'.



Touche.

At least if your helmet ever gets used  in a crime and it's discovered you have an alibi


----------



## Good2Golf

If the CF had records of him not turning in a barrack box and having to pay its replacement value before his release was finalized, there might be some argument that he had kept it and could have allegedly used the box while perpetrating or being party to the commission of the criminal activity.  

Were he to be charged and court proceedings taken against him, it would be up to the Crown to make the case beyond a reasonable doubt, that he had not returned the barrack box.  I don't see any information provided or alluded to by the CF that would make a convincing case that the barrack box could reasonably link him to the event.

The fact is that actions are being taken against him (linkage to unfounded/unproven "facts" during assessment of suitability for police service) that appear to not seem reasonable or to meet checks and balances regarding the veracity of information used during such assessments.

If there were something else there, I would think a brief but firm statement by DPS regarding Bate's application and unsuitability would end the matter.  It seems more that a number of processes are happening where no one agency wants to definitively resolve the issue, including the fact that there is a criminal investigation ongoing that has yet to resolve the issue of who actually committed the original crime.  If it was Bate, Durham Police Service should get on with laying charges and let the Crown prosecute him, if not, find out who actually fired the rifle.  In getting on with the investigation, the determination of Bate's guilt or innocence would at least be pursued....not left in limbo as it would appear to be, now.

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Journeyman

Also (again, based on news stories....which may _occasionally_ be more stories than news), the ball may have been dropped in one or more of those organizations. Unfortunately, in today's society accidents cannot simply 'happen'; there are enough lawyers seeking money to ensure that it's in neither organization's best interest to say "hey, we screwed up; we'll ensure it never happens again -- or even, we'll move you to the front of the hiring queue for consideration."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

...or lawyers trying to embarrass the police into giving up what they have on their client by going to the media.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

UPDATE

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2013/10/20/21208476.html
Chris Doucette, QMI Agency
Oct 20, 2013

TORONTO - A Canadian Forces veteran’s dream of becoming a police officer was crushed and his life turned upside down when he was accused of attempted murder.
The accusation continues to hang over his head — three years later.

So when Warren Bate, 37, heard former Oshawa councillor Robert Lutzcyk — behind bars for an abduction and lengthy stand-off with Durham Regional Police last fall — faced charges for a cache of ammunition, explosives and rifle identical to items investigators have tried to link him to since 2010, he was stunned.
“If they’ve charged someone else, I don’t understand how I can still be a suspect,” the Bowmanville man recently told the Toronto Sun.

Legally, police can list someone as a person of interest in a crime indefinitely.
Lutczyk, 46, was arrested following the gunpoint abduction of Oshawa City Solicitor David Potts in October 2012. While in custody awaiting a preliminary hearing on more than 20 charges stemming from the kidnapping, he was slapped with another seven charges last month.

The new charges stem from ammunition, explosives and a Remington Woodmaster rifle found in Clarington on Aug. 20, 2010.

Bate, who first shared his story in the Sun in June 2012, hoped to become a police officer after serving his country for 12 years as a reservist. His life was derailed with the discovery of a stash of munitions on Aug. 20, 2010 — identical to the one connected to the new charges against Lutczyk.
In October 2010, he was called by Durham police — one of the services he applied to — to come in and discuss their recruiting process.

But when Bate walked into the police station, he was instead accused of attempted murder for a sniper-style shooting of a pick-up truck on Hwy. 401 at Courtice Rd. a few months earlier.
Police records show Bate, who has no criminal record, was interrogated for six hours and he claims at one point a cop accused him of “leading a double life like Russell Williams,” the Canadian Forces colonel imprisoned for murder and rape.

Medical records show Bate was still healing from a recent back surgery at the time when police alleged he was stalking through the woods sniping at the truck.


----------



## Lightguns

Story is a little vague, has the other fellow admitted to the cache or are the police charging him for that specific cache or is he alluding the cache was similar therefore it must be him.


----------

