22 Murders: Investigating the Massacres, Cover-up and Obstacles to Justice in Nova Scotia

An interview with Paul Palango, the author of the newly released, best-selling book

[This interview took place over email. It has been lightly edited for clarity]

Linda Pannozzo (LP): In April 2020, when Gabriel Wortman—a Dartmouth denturist posing as a police officer—killed 22 people in rural Nova Scotia, you were a retired journalist who had spent much of your career reporting on the RCMP, first as a reporter and then as the national editor of the Globe and Mail. In 1989 you accepted a Michener Award on behalf of that newspaper. You’ve also written three books about our national police force in addition to your most recent one titled, 22 Murders: Investigating the Massacres, Cover-up and Obstacles to Justice in Nova Scotia. What was it that brought you out of retirement to embark on trying to understand the story behind these tragic and horrific events?

Paul Palango (PP): It was apparent to me that something terribly wrong was going on inside the RCMP. Originally, I had planned to use my knowledge and contacts to help the mainstream media understand and pursue the story and stories that were likely being hidden. After a couple of weeks, however, I recognized that the mass media was losing interest in the story. Despite their protestations to the contrary, they were only interested in getting dirt on Wortman and writing about the families of the victims. I thought the real story was what the RCMP knew and did before, during and after the massacres. No one else was going to pursue that angle, which I thought was the most important one, so I took it upon myself to do that, hoping that I might awaken the mainstream media along the way. I found that, for the most part, they weren’t all that interested in what I was doing and were content to let me do what I was doing.

Paul Palango, author of 22 Murders. Photo: Sharon McNamara

LP: Have you been following the proceedings of the Mass Casualty Commission (MCC) and if so, what are your thoughts about the process so far?

PP: From the outset it was evident to me that the federal and provincial governments were intent on protecting the RCMP. This was confirmed when they first announced a “review” which meant that no witnesses would be called. All they would do is review the paperwork and make recommendations. The three panelists named to head the review also raised concerns, especially Leann Fitch, who had recently been appointed to the RCMP Management Advisory Board. She had too many apparent conflicts – father was a Mountie, she was the police chief in a city where Wortman was likely committing crimes, she was married to a cop and was a member of police intelligence service boards and the like. After the families marched on the Bible Hill police station, the governments relented and set up an inquiry, with the same three people named as commissioners. Kim Stanton then replaced Anne McLellan. To date the process has not surprised me. It’s a review disguised as inquiry. Cross examinations are limited and controlled. There is no clear narrative being established so that the public can understand the underlying issues. Finally, there is no attempt to dig into Wortman’s criminal background and associates. I think the reason for this is that if the Commission did that it would inevitably raise the issue of what the RCMP and other police forces knew about him before, during and after the massacres. All in all, the Commission appears designed to bring out certain information but certainly not all the pertinent facts.

LP: To your knowledge, has there been anything significant revealed in the MCC process that you were unaware of in the writing of your book, that would have made a difference in your reporting?

PP: Not much, really. Even if I had heard that certain police officers were drunk on duty, for example, I likely couldn’t report that in the book due to legal concerns. The communications breakdowns described throughout the hearings are compelling but, it would be fair to say, all that was stated or implied in the book’s narrative.

LP: One of the key ways in which the official narrative of events differs from what you’ve been advancing almost from the beginning is that you think the shooter, Gabriel Wortman was either himself a police informant or someone close to him was. In a nutshell, can you tell the reader how your narrative differs from the official one and what led you to diverge in this way?

PP: In my past work on the RCMP I had studied how the government and the RCMP have created sometimes questionable or outright false narratives to explain tricky situations. The narrative that this was a domestic violence situation gone bad didn’t work for me. If it were true then why did the governments and RCMP go to such lengths to lie and cover-up facts and situations – the 911 calls, the Onslow-Belmont shoot-up and the shooting of Wortman at the Irving Big Stop, among other things. Early on in my investigation, my sources told me there was more going on than met the eye.

In June 2020, we received a copy of the RCMP’s undercover manual. It laid out how the force should operate in a blown undercover situation. Among the key steps were not calling in other police forces and keeping everything in house. It also set out that the force could lie about the existence of a confidential informant, even in death. Over the past two years, I have done everything I can to try to disprove that Wortman or someone very close to him had a special relationship with the police. I still haven’t been able to do that and am continuing to investigate. The RCMP and the mainstream media like to call me a conspiracy theorist for doing that, but all I’m doing is trying to get to the truth. Once again, if this was just a domestic violence case that got out of hand, why is the RCMP and governments reluctant to get into Wortman’s long criminal history? It doesn’t make sense.

LP: The official narrative is that Wortman’s common law partner, Lisa Banfield, managed to escape from him during a violent assault and hid in the woods until 6:30 in the morning when she appeared at the door of neighbour, Leon Joudrey’s house. That she was a victim of domestic abuse is something you have questioned in your reporting. Why is it so important to you to question this? Surely if Wortman was capable of the unspeakable violence against humans and animals that we know he was, then he was very likely capable of other types of victimization and abuse. You’ve written elsewhere that “Banfield’s victimhood was erected on a semi-solid foundation at best.” What is it about the claims of domestic abuse that bother you so much, and why is it consequential to understanding what took place over the course of those two days?

PP: There is no question that the Wortman-Banfield relationship was toxic – on both sides. They had separate bedrooms. Banfield fielded all his phone calls and, therefore, was likely aware of the criminality going on during their 19 years together. I also know from sources close to Banfield that she is no shrinking violet, herself. I was also able to show how she had misled or outright lied in two small claims court cases, which raises serious questions about her credibility. I have no doubt that there were violent episodes in their relationship, but I was also suspicious about the reasons for some of those events. For example, Brenda Forbes played the part of a do-gooder in the neighbourhood who said she was stalked and terrorized by Wortman after trying to report an assault by him on Banfield. The police investigated and neither Banfield or anyone else said it happened. Meanwhile, I was told of many wild and crazy swinger parties in the neighbourhood. Wortman attended many of them. Some saw Banfield at one of the parties but there is no indication that she participated in the shenanigans. There was a lot more going on in their relationship than a simple controlling man and submissive victim woman scenario, which the media is so enamoured with.

LP: You’ve written, “The bottom line is that the media has allowed itself to become politicized and, in doing so, has failed in its duty to hold the government and police accountable.” What do you mean by this and can you provide an example? 

PP: In one of his words on the incident, Prime Minister Trudeau said the media should not repeat Wortman’s name because his infamy should not be glorified, or words to that effect. The media went along with it. The mass media shied away from naming Banfield until she was charged. Why? Because she was declared to be a victim – without any solid evidence to prove that assumption. That’s all politics. Not naming Wortman and Banfield – and others – served to create a vacuum in news gathering and caused the true story to die out from lack of oxygen. Before long, the story was being forgotten by many – just another massacre. If nobody bothered to report the underlying facts, the government and the RCMP would never be held accountable for what happened. I think that was the grand plan and I’m happy to say I did my best to thwart it.

LP: Many journalists have focused their reporting of these events on the fact that the RCMP used Twitter rather than the Alert Ready provincial warning system, and failed to adequately warn residents that there was an active shooter disguised as a police officer driving a fully decked out cruiser. They’ve argued that had the RCMP done so, they could have potentially saved the lives of those tragically killed on the second day of the massacre. This isn’t really something you spend too much time on in your book, why is that?

PP: I think what I reported in the book about Twitter hit the right notes. It was obvious that the RCMP appeared to be either caught like deer in the headlights or were hoping beyond hope that they might stop and kill Wortman before anyone found out the truth of the situation. Based upon what I’ve learned from the MCC hearings, such as they are, the latter scenario seems most likely. They were bent upon killing him and then covering up what had really happened. To me, that raises the question, once again, of Wortman’s relationship to the police.

LP: Given what we’ve recently heard at the MCC hearings about the inadequacy of the police radio communication system, it seems plausible that releasing the information about Wortman’s use of an RCMP cruiser could have posed a risk to real RCMP members, making them not only a target of vigilantism, but a target of other police officers, leading potentially to even greater chaos and loss of life. What are your thoughts on this?

PP: If anything, this exposes the flaws in the RCMP promotion system. Over the years the vast majority of people chosen to run the force are managers not leaders. Many of them have very little experience on the ground. Most of them are risk averse. For self-protection they wrap themselves in bureaucracy and procedures. The fact of the matter is that there were officers on the road who were recommending tactics, which were ignored at the top. The suggestion that rural Nova Scotians would have taken the law into their own hands and begun shooting indiscriminately at police officers is abhorrent. It shows just how far out of touch the Mounties are with the communities they supposedly serve. To argue that police might have been shot that day conveniently ignores the fact that the police are there to protect the public. That’s their job. We don’t want them to be killed but they have a duty to put their lives on the line when the situation calls for it. That’s shitty, but that’s the way it must work for everyone to be safe. If the police don’t want to take those risks, they should work elsewhere.

LP: Speaking of the police radio system, the inquiry recently heard that the radio in the gunman's replica RCMP vehicle was an older model that would not have had the capacity to listen in to the digital radio network used by the RCMP during the shooting. That’s something you speculate about in your book: that he may have a police radio, which helped him to stay ahead of the police. In fact, as was reported here, in the days after Wortman’s rampage, Banfield described to the police how he'd make comments about having the safest vehicle if they ever had to leave town quickly and that he had purchased a radio system that he'd use to be steps ahead of the police. Can you tell us more about what you know about the radio system he was using?

PP: I don’t know what radio he was using. I suspect he had a cell phone as well. I say this because it appears that he had some way of monitoring police communications and possibly communicating with the police, either here or in New Brunswick.

LP: In your book you referred to your “investigative journalist performance art sessions.” What were these and how did they help advance the narrative you were developing?

PP: Being a lone wolf taking on a massive investigation, I found that going on the Rick Howe/ Todd Veinotte talk shows were very helpful to advancing the investigation. I could both engage a large audience and seek their help. While it is entirely unusual to talk about a journalistic  investigation while it is going on, I could safely do it because I knew that the mainstream and alternative media had tuned me out and were providing no competition. They weren’t going to steal anything. Even if they did, I didn’t mind, I wanted to get the story out. The first big success was asking for help about Wortman and a delivery from Brink’s, and uncovering someone who had a videotape of the transaction. I continue to use that technique, with success, to this day.

LP: You noted in your book that many in the mainstream media and general public have taken the position that the only credible sources are those who will allow their real names to be used, but you say, “that approach to journalism” is one that is “conceived by ivory-tower purists, accountants, lawyers and their insurers.” Tell us about your use of unidentified sources and give us an example of where something you were told by a source was proven to be factual?

PP: Sources told me that the government was going to call a review and not an inquiry. I talked about this on Rick Howe a number of times. Eventually, they announced the review. The Brink’s story was another one. I pleaded for a great Canadian to step forward and provide me with “proof of death” in the Big Stop shooting. The next week I was provided with the videotapes. I could go on, but you get the point.

LP: Between 1977 and 1990 you were a reporter and eventually national editor for the Globe and Mail. You refer to this time in your book as “the “stone age of journalism.” What do you mean by that and what do you think has changed in the news industry since then?

PP: What I mean facetiously about the stone age was that back then there was a sense in journalism that reporters were “disinterested.” That meant they took on stories without an agenda. The biggest changes I’ve seen in the news industry mirror what has happened in many sectors, especially government and policing. Leaders were replaced by managers. Everything was reduced to rigid formatting. In Journalism, reporters and columnists were not allowed to roam outside their specific territories. There was no deep digging anymore. Once a story is done – that field is ploughed – it’s largely ignored. Editors expect stories to be done in a couple of days or so and then it’s time to move on to something else. Governments, police and businesses know this and have learned to rag the puck until the media predictably loses interest.

Politicization crept in – be it in the form of political correctness, neo-conservativism, or wokeness. A good example of this is the Halifax Examiner, which declares itself to be adversarial, which it promotes as being a good thing. But what it really means is that the paper has a political bent and will challenge its perceived opponents. However, it is deliberately blind to the failing of those in its own hemisphere. That’s why I prefer disinterested as an operating philosophy. Everyone and everything is fair game to be investigated without fear or favouritism.

LP: What do you say to readers and reporters out there who believe your work is pure speculation and not grounded in facts?

PP: I have written three, influential, fact-filled books on the RCMP. I have a solid foundation for investigating the force. Those who say I’m speculating are typically Mounties or ex Mounties or lazy journalists. I would argue that what makes some people uncomfortable is that my style of reporting encompasses three different approaches in one: factual reporting, analysis, and commentary. I always provide context to everything, something that is typically left out by reporters and editors. Why do I do it that way? I have limited opportunities and space to tell stories. I try to both inform and engage the readers, while openly soliciting new leads.

LP: How do you think this story would have gotten reported if the borders weren’t closed due to COVID and journalists from across the country would have been able to come, without a 14-day quarantine, to report on it?

PP: I don’t think much would be different. It’s a difficult story to investigate. Most journalists would give up – especially their editors. The Fifth Estate did their piece in the fall of 2020. It was 44 minutes of air time. They left and never came back. Got an award and moved on to other things. No media have the mindset to doggedly pursue a story to its conclusion. The Watergate investigation and others like it, couldn’t happen today in Canada, because the collective media has the attention span of a hummingbird.

LP: Do you think your book, which was published as the MCC is underway, has influenced it in any way, and if so, how?

PP: My intention with my reporting and the book was to put as many names and uncomfortable facts as possible on the public record so that the MCC could not ignore them. From what I’m being told, people seem to be happy that I put together a clear narrative and raised all the issues that I did. The MCC is still playing games with many of the facts, hiding witnesses and, although it says it’s not,  holding hands with the RCMP and the government. There’s a long way to go yet.

LP: You’re also involved in creating a documentary. Can you tell us a bit about that?

PP: It’s moving along slowly but it’s moving. We have a lot of film in the can but the government and the MCC are obviously wary of this project. They are doing everything they can to take the drama out of the equation because drama is the fuel of documentaries.

LP: Is there anything else you think readers should be aware of or anything else you’d like to share?

PP: Lia Scanlan [the director of strategic communications for NS RCMP] made up some stories about me pestering the RCMP for information about biker informants and the like over the previous 10 years. Didn’t happen. I was retired. She called me a number of names, including ‘asshole’ twice. I’ve been called an asshole before but that was the first time it was in an official government document. Maybe I’ll frame it.

Also, people keep asking me if I am concerned about my safety. The very fact that they feel compelled to ask that question speaks volumes about the deferential nature of Canadians, especially Nova Scotians. There should be nothing to fear if one challenges the police in the public interest, but people have been conditioned to be fearful of authority rather than standing up to it.