QUESTIONING ASSUMPTIONS BY LARRY HARTWIG

What was the issue that the RCMP were trying to prove in this case?  Was it how Neil ended up where he died?  No.  Was it how he died?  No.  The issue that the RCMP were trying to establish was the issue of “custody.”  “Custody” meaning whether or not I had encountered Neil that night, regardless of whether he was in handcuffs, beaten up or not.  Remember “custody” means ANY control over a person, verbal OR physical.  But perhaps the RCMP took the narrow view of the definition of “custody” in this case.  The problem with such a focus, as I freely admitted to the RCMP, was that it was possible that I may have encountered Neil. It was possible that he lied about who he was.  It was possible he produced his cousin’s name.  It was possible that he fooled me and I let him go without detecting the deception.  This issue of “custody” is meaningless unless you FIRST ASSUME that Jason Roy was telling the truth about Neil being in the patrol car.  This admission of these POSSIBILITIES was considered to be a confession on my part that I knowingly had Neil in “custody.” Based on those ASSUMPTIONS (along with assumptions that I beat him up (even though medical people found he had not been beaten), and assumptions I drove him to the north end and abandoned him, etc.) by the RCMP, Wright, Sabo, and Silversides, I was fired in disgrace.