September 5, 2001
Chief Jack Ewatski
Winnipeg Police Department
RE: Case no. 96-0522C
I have remained silent during the past 5½ years in accordance with my daughter's and her lawyer's wishes. I have been patient and tolerant throughout this ordeal and now feel that I must speak my mind.
I am referring to Detective Sergeant Lorne Schinkel's affidavit filed on December 29, 1997 in the Circuit Court, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida. This affidavit pertains to my daughter's extradition to the United States on charges of murdering her husband, Major David Turenne. Many facts made by Detective Schinkel are untrue.
I am referring to the following discrepancies:
Para 4: Detective Schinkel was not requested by Warrant Officer Pierre Raymond of the Canadian Armed Forces Special Investigation Unit for assistance. Dan Lett of the Winnipeg Free Press confirmed this following his investigation of this case. When confronted by Dan Lett, Detective Schinkel changed his story, thereby insisting that the Base Military Police had requested his assistance. Once again, following Dan Lett's investigation, this proved false. Detective Schinkel then advised him that the Panama City detectives Jones and Bates had asked the military if they would allow them to interrogate Monique. Yet, upon affixing his signature on this affidavit, Detective Schinkel committed perjury.
Paras 6 & 7: Detective Schinkel refers to my name as Henry Paille. My name is Jean-Emile Paillé. Perhaps the fact that Detective Schinkel and Sgt Jim Thiessen had just left Mr. Henry Thorimbert's residence (Mr. Thorimbert being my daughter's abusive ex-husband), whereby they had just obtained a second "revised" statement, would explain his mistake.
With reference to paras 6 - 12 inclusive, I will hereby confirm the truthful events of the evening and morning of February 14-15, 1996.
On February 14, 1996 at 11:15 p.m., I was awaken by the doorbell and greeted two homicide detectives of the Winnipeg Police Department. Detective Schinkel and Sgt Thiessen were invited into the residence. They chose to remain at the back entrance and requested to speak with my daughter Monique. The officers informed us that a suspect had been apprehended and that they were awaiting more information.
They asked my daughter to escort them elsewhere for approximately 10 to 15 minutes to discuss forthcoming details. Again, we invited the officers into the residence, be it in the kitchen, the livingroom or rec room. At all three (3) instances, the officers remained at the back door and insisted that it would be better elsewhere. My daughter asked if I could attend. Detective Schinkel quickly responded that it wouldn't be necessary and that they did not want to inconvenience my wife and me. We explained that the funeral was the next morning at 11:00 a.m. They assured us that it would only take a few minutes. While my daughter went to change her clothing, the officers promised my wife and me that they would be back within 15 minutes and not worry. As my daughter was ready to leave, her 3-year-old son awoke crying for her. Again, in order to calm the child, we thought it best that they come in to discuss matters. They persisted and promised to return momentarily.
At no time did I think to ask the officers if my daughter required a lawyer. Their presence reflected genuine concern for my widowed daughter and the investigation. There was no reason to believe that my daughter was a suspect.
At approximately 2:00 a.m., my daughter had not yet returned. Not knowing where the officers had taken her, I telephoned the Winnipeg Police Department to inquire of her whereabouts and her return. I was advised that my daughter would be returning shortly. I was not informed that she was locked in an interrogation room, unable to leave or speak to anyone.
At approximately 5:00 a.m., I presented myself at the Public Safety Building and again inquired about my daughter's whereabouts. The officer at the front desk contacted Sgt Thiessen who then came to the lobby. He informed me that they were almost finished and that she would be returning home shortly. I was not permitted to see or speak with her. Again I was assured that she was "alright". At no time did Sgt Thiessen advise me that she was a suspect in my son-in-law's murder.
At 8:35 a.m., I once again telephoned the Winnipeg Police Department inquiring about my daughter. The police officer informed me that she was en route.
At 8:45 a.m., my daughter was escorted back home by Detective Schinkel and Sgt Thiessen. The two officers came into the kitchen and asked my wife and me to take care of my daughter. They had not advised me that my daughter would be charged with murder. It wasn't until later that we would discover their hypocrisy and lies.
My daughter advised my wife and me that [from the time she left with them] Detective Schinkel and Sgt Thiessen would not permit her to leave or telephone anyone. She was forced to endure a night of interrogation, ridicule, lies and threats. This, on the eve of her husband's funeral. My daughter had been locked in an interrogation room for over eight (8) hours, not permitted to call us or a lawyer. Her rights had been violated. As she had been deprived of sleep and was emotional drawn, she fell asleep in church thereby missing her husband's funeral. She had been depressed and the officers' actions aggravated matters.
Isn't it ironic that only after the funeral were we advised of the charges against my daughter? Isn't it ironic that I chose to contact Mr. Greg Brodsky to represent her? Had I had any indication of the officers' wrongdoing and misleading attempts, I would have contacted him earlier. The Winnipeg Police played me for a fool.
As I sat in court and Crown Attorney Frayer read Detective Schinkel's affidavit out loud, I had to restrain myself. As I listened to the lies, I lost all confidence and trust in the Winnipeg Police Department.
As I mentioned above, Dan Lett did investigate Detective Schinkel's affidavit and my daughter's alleged police statement. He also found many discrepancies. Unfortunately, the Winnipeg Police Department have refused to collaborate with him and answer any more of his questions.
Another discrepancy on the part of the officers in question pertains to two (2) statements obtained by my daughter's ex-husband, Henry Thorimbert. The first one was obtained a day or so after David Turenne's death. The second was obtained on February 14, 1996, prior to the officers coming to my residence. Isn't it ironic that the two (2) statements contradicted each other? How are the officers going to explain this? This action, I presume, was encouraged by the Turenne family in conjunction with Henry Thorimbert. I sincerely believe the officers didn't know that the Turennes and Henry Thorimbert had already been in contact, had reviewed the will and preferred to be the beneficiaries. Mr. Thorimbert was present at the Turennes shortly after the funeral, quite smug. Their plan to remove the wife and ex-wife had been carefully and strategically played out by the Winnipeg Police.
Mr. Thorimbert had abused my daughter throughout their marriage and thereafter. In August 1997, he physically abused his son. Social workers and a Legal Aid lawyer were called in to protect Daniel. At no time did we bother to call the Winnipeg Police.
I also sincerely believe that Detective Schinkel and Sgt Thiessen wanted desperately to impress their U.S. counterparts. I mean, they are part of "Winnipeg's Finest" aren't they?
I also believe that Detective Schinkel and Sgt Thiessen would prefer that my daughter be extradited so that they can deal with their "atrocity" in a foreign court. This would guarantee them certain immunity and less scrutiny than if it were tried in Winnipeg.
Upon my daughter's arrest in June 1998, Detective Schinkel and Sgt Thiessen presented themselves at her residence (even though Mr. Brodsky had assured them that he would be escorting her personally). Monique had called my wife and me to go pick up our grandsons. Detective Schinkel took me aside and advised me, quote "It's Crompton, the Turennes and Thorimbert who are responsible for your daughter,s ordeal unquote. This was before I knew of his affidavit. Once again, I believe that Detective Schinkel really thought that my daughter would have been immediately extradited to the U.S. instead of proceeding through the slow and on-going extradition process.
Madam Justice Steel based her decision to extradite my daughter on Detective Schinkel's affidavit and the "questionable" police statement.
Needless to say, the truth will prevail and the officers will see their day in court. I am just wondering if they will finally tell the truth.
I am leaving this matter in your hands. Perhaps as Chief of Police, you will examine the facts, their actions and intervene to correct this injustice.
I would never wish this injustice done to anyone else.
CC: Mr. Greg Brodsky, Brodsky & Company
CC: Mrs. Joyce Milgaard