The Val d’Or police officers, who are suing Radio-Canada for defamation, are trying to demonstrate that the journalist did not do her job diligently by highlighting the contradictions of an indigenous woman, who was at the heart of the report which shook all of Quebec in the fall of 2015.
Brigitte Dufresne was among the police officers from the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal (SPVM) deployed to Val d’Or in October 2015, to investigate the allegations made by indigenous women in the report Abuse of the SQ. Indigenous women break the silence. It was in this context that the police officer met Priscilla Papatie.
In the report, Ms. Papatie alleged that police officers arrested her and then left her further in town, in the Walmart parking lot, after shoving her, throwing her shoes in the snow and emptying beer into her bag. It indicated that the events had occurred “in winter”.
However, when she met police officer Brigitte Dufresne a few weeks later, Ms. Papatie instead placed the events in October, the police officer revealed.
The investigator met a friend of Ms. Papatie, who was present during the arrest. This friend collected Ms. Papatie’s testimony when she returned to the bar, 45 minutes later. “She is certain that the event took place between August 11, 2014 and the following two weeks, because that is the only time she went to Val d’Or,” said the police officer who read her stenographic notes in front of the tribunal.
Journalistic investigation v. police investigation
At the insistence of the police lawyer, Me Marco Gaggino, who clearly marked the contradictory time elements, the defendants’ lawyer raised an objection. “My claim is that we cannot compare a journalistic investigation to a police investigation,” argued M.e Geneviève Gagnon. And that, therefore, this testimony is not relevant because Ms. Dupuis [la journaliste] did not have access to Ms. Dufresne’s investigation, which was carried out after the report, moreover, and that it is a roundabout way of proving veracity. »
For his part, the police officers’ lawyer believes he is within his rights. “As for us, the evidence is entirely relevant,” replied M.e Gaggino. If Ms. Dupuis had met Ms. Papatie’s friend — and when Ms. Dupuis met Ms. Papatie, she told her that she was with two friends — this was not unknown information. She just had to do the exact same thing. It’s not because she’s a police officer. It does not change anything. We didn’t even try the process. »
Judge Babak Barin decided to let the policewoman continue her testimony, since the trial, which will last several weeks, is still in its very early stages. “You will have every chance to argue when the time comes for the pleadings to indicate whether it is relevant or not,” ruled the judge.
The policewoman will be cross-examined in the afternoon.