Affidavit (p 2)
A court Affidavit typically has exhibits attached to corroborate and expand upon the points. When the Affidavit is published online, the full set of exhibits cannot be replicated, as some are lengthy.
That applies to the Affidavit printed here. Thus to aid clarity, some paragraphs have been amplified beyond the original by adding verbatim quotes from the exhibits. Main areas:
¶ 5Dr. Yelland's falsification of the end-date of doctor-patient contract. Complicit with his lawyer Hirschfeld, Yelland attempted an end-run around abuse complaint.
¶ 17DNA analysis from the RCMP Laboratory: the Y-chromosomes prove author of lifestyle letters was male.
¶ 28Dr. Yelland's chart: Breach of HIPA, and breach of the Medical Profession Bylaws. These actions, done with illogical haste, are evidence of mala fide agenda.
14. A related point is the billing pattern in the first two months of 2001. During January and February 2001, I had eight appointments with Dr. Yelland, on the dates listed on the billing Statement. At that time Dr. Yelland still practiced at the Mediclinic, and that is where I, and his other patients, attended for appointments. As a full-time employee of the Mediclinic, Dr. Yelland was answerable – medically and financially – to the clinic head, Dr. Lacny. Yet from the start of 2001 Dr. Yelland began to hide or withhold his income from Dr. Lacny.
The Statement of Physician Services exposes this in the ‘Provider Correspondence’ column, which lists the address where a doctor wants his cheques from the Medical Care Insurance Branch (MCIB) to be sent. During January and February of 2001, Dr. Yelland worked full-time at the Mediclinic, but had his MCIB cheques sent to a different address to ‘shelter’ that income.
15. Dr. Yelland acknowledged that he had a bitter business dispute with Dr. Lacny. It was so acrimonious that, under questioning by police, Dr. Yelland named Dr. Lacny as the only possible suspect for the lifestyle-letters, during the first half-year that the letters were in circulation. The police reports are attached (Exhibit L). In summary:
16. However, on December 9, 2001 Sgt. Bracken interviewed Dr. Yelland again, and achieved a quite different result. They discussed the first three lifestyle-letters which began with the phrase ‘Counseling is Offered by Dr. Yelland.’ These were found on the second floor of Sturdy Stone Centre, just meters away from the Social Services Intake Office which refers virtually all of the city's child sexual-abuse cases to Dr. Yelland. Police tagged these letters as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3. On December 9, 2001 after speaking to Yelland, Sgt. Bracken completed a Form titled Request for Analysis/Examination of Exhibits (Exhibit M). The Form contains this key admission:
“Dr. Yelland states the signatures on Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 are real, but the one on Exhibit 4 is a forgery.
Sgt. Bracken sent this Form to Heather Shalley at the Document Section of the RCMP Forensic Laboratory in Regina. After that, Shalley carefully side-stepped any testing of Exhibits 1, 2, or 3.
17. DNA Test: On December 7, 2001 Sgt. Bracken sent Exhibits 1 to 8 (letters and envelopes) to the Document Section of the RCMP Lab for handwriting analysis. Bracken also wanted DNA tests on the paper, but he asked for this before his interview with Yelland. The RCMP transferred the exhibits internally to the Biology Section where DNA work is done. Shortly after, either Heather Shalley or Sgt. Bracken added a limiting instruction as follows:
Although the Biology Lab received the full set of Exhibits (numbered 1 to 8), they used only a subset of that material: only Exhibits 4, 5, 7, and 8 were tested for DNA. No other DNA tests were ever done. The solitary DNA report (Exhibit N) said:
“Exhibits 1 to 8 inclusive were received, in sealed condition, from Sgt. Bracken on Dec 7, 2001. Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 6 were not examined.
The DNA report did not list any selection criteria, nor give reasons why some exhibits were tested while others were excluded. Logic explains the omission of Exhibit 6: this was a handwriting sample from suspect Dr. Lacny, and with the writer being known, DNA tests were unnecessary. However, the exclusion of Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 is not readily explained, especially since the Lab had the original documents on site. Note: According to police reports, the letters found at Sturdy Stone were originals signed in ink. They were not photocopies, nor a cut-and-paste job.
DNA tests were done on Exhibits 4, 5, 7, and 8. These all showed a strictly male DNA profile (although the male person was not identified, the Y chromosome pattern was prominent). Genetically, a male has an X and a Y chromosome, while a female has two X chromosomes. Some exhibits, before being turned in to police, had been handled by more than one person, but each DNA profile lifted from the paper was confirmed as male. This result is exculpatory, and excludes me from involvement with these exhibits. The reason is fundamental: I am female.
My involvement was excluded from the remainder: Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 belonged to Dr. Yelland, who quietly admitted to police that he personally signed them. Exhibit 6 was the handwriting sample of Dr. Lacny, which speaks for itself. A list of dates is illuminating:
|2001||August 30||The first three Counseling Letters were found near the Social Services Intake Office in Sturdy Stone Centre. Sgt. Bracken collected the originals.|
|December 7||Sgt. Bracken sent all the early exhibits to the RCMP Lab for DNA testing. This included the three Counseling Letters from Sturdy Stone.|
|December 9||Dr. Yelland admitted that the three Counseling Letters from Sturdy Stone “had his own real signature” – Sgt. Bracken recorded this admission in a Form sent to the RCMP, but it appears nowhere else.|
|December 28||The RCMP Lab completed their DNA tests. The profile was male DNA. But the report said that the three Counseling Letters from Sturdy Stone were excluded from DNA testing. No reason was given.|
18. The August 30, 2001 Occurrence Report from Sgt. Bracken contains a lengthy physical description of the Counseling Letters from Sturdy Stone. That report, however, records only one reaction from Dr. Yelland. To wit: Dr. Yelland told the police and the staff at the Social Services Intake Office that he ‘appreciated their discretion.’
19. The Request for Analysis/Examination of Exhibits Form is stamped on its face ‘Disclosed June 25, 2002.’ However that was the date the police disclosed the Form to the Crown. The Crown did not pass on the Form to the defence as part of the initial Muirhead Disclosure. We eventually found the Form, buried in a 3”-thick binder of notes belonging to RCMP expert Heather Shalley.
Ms. Shalley did not mention her binder at all to the defence until she testified at the Preliminary Inquiry on November 4, 2004 (Exhibit O, pages 321-322). At that session my attorney requested the binder, but did not receive it until spring 2005. By that date, Sgt. Bracken and Dr. Yelland had both been dismissed as Crown witnesses, and could not be questioned about the pivotal admission on that Form.
20. Testimony from Heather Shalley, the RCMP document expert, was the linchpin of the case. She first appeared at the Preliminary Inquiry on November 4, 2004. Slotted at the end of a long day, her cross-examination was cut short. She testified for an hour. I was absent that day. Robert Borden placed it on record that after we received her forensic binder, the cross-examination should continue in a future session and it would be extensive. Thus Heather Shalley was recalled to the witness stand on July 6, 2006. But the Crown was adamant about closing its case that day. Over my vigorous protests, Heather Shalley was dismissed with finality after perhaps 1% of our ground was covered (Exhibit P).
21. At the Preliminary Inquiry, during testimony or at organizational sessions, none of the participants – Dr. Yelland, Sgt. Bracken, Heather Shalley, or the Crown Prosecutor – even hinted at the Request for Analysis/Examination of Exhibits Form wherein Dr. Yelland admitted that the first three Counseling Letters contained his own real signature.
22. On November 20, 2006 at the Preliminary Inquiry, though the Crown's case was closed, I insisted on filing the DNA Report (which became court exhibit D-21) and the Request for Analysis/Examination of Exhibits Form (which became court exhibit D-23). I did so to protect the integrity of these documents (Exhibit Q).
23. I verily believe that the charges laid against me in Information #44909738 and Information #31150649 were inextricably linked to, and caused by, the state of mind of both principals – Sgt. James Bracken and Dr. Joel Yelland.
Tuum Est - It Is Up To You
In court, you will hear the word exhibit used in three distinct ways:
Documents or physical items of evidence gathered by police, which combine to form the res gestae of a case. They are assigned cardinal numbers: Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2 …
Documents attached to an Affidavit which authenticate and enlarge upon the points. Each document is notarized with a stamp specifying Exhibit A, Exhibit B …
Documents or physical items formally filed as evidence when court convenes during a Preliminary Inquiry, Trial or Tribunal. There is both Prosecution evidence (P-1, P-2 … ) and Defence evidence (D-1, D-2 … )
Copyright © 2008-2019 Georgena Sil. All Rights Reserved.