If Harry Bakema is only acting like a man who is very bad at his job, he's putting in an Academy Award-winning performance.
The former chief of the East St. Paul police force dazzled the judicial inquiry into the death of Crystal Taman with his inability to recall even the most basic facts from the morning that Taman was killed in a horrific traffic collision. Worse, what details he could remember seemed to establish quite clearly Bakema failed miserably in the commission of his duties as the chief investigator of the fatality.
Bakema is one of the few people to testify at the inquiry who could be still be charged with an offence. The commission can, if Commissioner Roger Salhany finds the evidence, recommend an investigation for obstruction of justice charges against anyone who tried to scuttle the investigation.
To date, it has been difficult to tell if the cops were corrupt, or incompetent. Bakema's testimony isn't helping sort out that key question.
Bakema's notes -- the key record of what he saw and did -- were a complete mess and his memory consistently failed to provide any clarity. His chronology of events made no sense, and conflicted with other sources of information on the timing of events, which included other officers, paramedics and witnesses at the scene.
In one memorable exchange with Commission Counsel David Paciocco, Bakema stood dumbfounded in front of a poster-sized aerial photograph of the intersection where Taman was killed, unable to accurately locate the three cars involved in the fatal collision.
The problem with Bakema's testimony is that on many levels, it is very difficult to believe. A police officer with more than 30 years experience in a big-city police force, a good deal of that time spent in a supervisory capacity, unable to recall the most basic details of a memorable collision and subsequent investigation.
This lack of recall is even more remarkable because Bakema was allowed by the commission to sit through all the testimony to date. Even though he had a lengthy opportunity to review all the documents and exhibits filed at the inquiry, and listen to all the witnesses, Bakema was unable to remember the simplest of facts.
However, Bakema was able to recall that he worked with Harvey-Zenk in the same district office of the Winnipeg Police Service two years earlier. Despite the fact the two men worked different shifts and saw very little of each other, he was able to recognize Harvey-Zenk that February morning and call him by his first name.
It is beyond comprehension that Bakema could recognize a casual acquaintance he had not seen for two years but could not remember the salient details of the accident scene.
The debate among observers to Monday's testimony is centred on a simple question: Is this some sort of act adopted to cover up a co-ordinated effort to scuttle the prosecution of Harvey-Zenk, or is Bakema that bad at his job that he could have completely botched the investigation from the moment he stepped out of his car?
Through Paciocco's questioning, it is not tough to envision a scenario that saw Bakema quickly and profoundly overwhelmed by what happened the morning of Taman's death.
There was the gore and carnage of the accident. It was February, not quite light out, and extremely cold. Added to the chaos of that scene, Bakema quickly finds out an off-duty Winnipeg cop is likely responsible for the collision. Even worse, Bakema discovers that he knows the cop.
Not to make excuses, but Bakema was dealt a pretty bad hand. He acknowledged in his testimony that he was concerned about the fact Harvey-Zenk was a cop, and a cop he was familiar with. He said he was prepared to deal with the mess he had been handed, but acknowledged that he was also trying to get one of his junior officers to deal with Harvey-Zenk so he wouldn't be dragged into a political quagmire.
How else could Bakema explain the fact that despite these concerns, he did not make any mention of the fact he knew Harvey-Zenk in his notes. Nor did he warn his fellow officers, or that he did not ask Harvey-Zenk what happened or if he had been drinking. (In what has to be the quote of the inquiry so far, Bakema said he did not question Harvey-Zenk because he had "stopped answering questions.")
Regardless of his motivation, Bakema's performance that morning condemned the investigation and prosecution to inevitable failure.
After hearing the astounding testimony, you have to leave open the possibility this might be an act.
Or it might be evidence of something a whole lot more disturbing.
dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca
PREVIOUS
