Judge allows Stephans’ statements to RCMP and child abuse consultant for upcoming trial

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Bluesky
• Share on X
• Copy Link

Continuing his analysis, Justice Rooke said that a person does have the right to remain silent, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to be spoken to by a person in authority.

Nighttime construction on Hwy 3 in Lethbridge starts April 17

Apr 17, 2025

SASHA launches #BuyABed fundraiser to support vulnerable Lethbridge residents

Apr 04, 2025

$20K grants available: TELUS STORYHIVE Pan-Asian Edition opens applications April 1

Mar 18, 2025

He told the court the RCMP officer also made no threats to the couple, including whether to potentially take their son Ezra away. In fact, the officer had no authority to do so.

On the atmosphere of oppression, Justice Rooke told the court that no oppressive conditions existed, and that if the mere presence of police constituted that, there would never be voluntary statements given to them.

Indeed, Rooke said that according to the information he had, the Stephans asked for the meeting with the officer to occur, because they “wanted to get it over with,” so they could rest. The constable at the time (corporal currently), said he would take statements another time or, “catch up with them later,” if the couple did not want to speak so early in the morning of March 14.

The Stephans also told the court earlier that they were never informed by either RCMP or the child abuse pediatrician, they didn’t have to speak with them, however the couple also at no time asked to speak with a lawyer.

On the subject of operating mind, both David and Collet earlier told the court they were extremely stressed out, sleep and food deprived. David’s father, Anthony also testified that David “wasn’t there.” Justice Rooke agreed that the two were under an enormous amount of stress, but that he accepted the Crown’s argument that the elder Stephan was not present during the police interviews and therefore could not assess executive function. There was also no evidence of drug or alcohol intoxication, mental illness or physical illness with either David or Collet.

And on the issue of trickery, the judge found that no one dealing with the Stephans was an undercover officer or agent, and that no one respresented themselves as other than what they were.

The argument that Dr. Jennifer D’Mello misrepresented herself to Collet was also rejected by the judge.

Calgary father Jeromie Clark, who, along with his wife Jennifer was found guilty of criminal negligence causing death and failing to provide the necessaries of life after the death of their 14-month-old son John, was also in attendance for the ruling.

Outside of the courthouse, David spoke with the media and said he wasn’t surprised with the judge’s decisions.

“Our reaction to Justice Rooke dismissing our applications? He’s basically picked them all apart piece by piece, taken major issue over any of the controversial ones that would expose the RCMP corruption and hospital corruption in engineering the case against us…so we’re not surprised at all, actually, that he’s done what he’s done.”

David also questioned why the Crown brought forward a document that the couple had taken issue with before because the couple claimed it had been altered and was missing information.

“And that’s what we had been given in disclosure. And rather than the judge examining it fully and getting on the Crown’s case about it, he actually got on our case about it. And that’s what we’ve seen over and over and over. And there seems to be a level of protection of the system going on, to try to suppress any of this controversial evidence that we have from coming before the courts.”

Justice Rooke earlier in the week told the Stephans that if they believed their case was “botched” or “engineered” by police or hospital staff, that they should bring those matters and the evidence they have forward in a civil case.

 “We absolutely disagree with the judge’s take on having to take all of this civilly,” said David.

It’s not clear whether the couple will have a lawyer in June for their four-week trial, which was ordered last year, by the Supreme Court of Canada, after it was ruled the original trial judge erred in his instruction to the jury.

“With a complex case like this, there is so much a legal representative would have to come up to speed on, that it would absolutely break the bank.”

The couple was convicted in 2016 of failing to provide the necessaries of life, after their 19-month-old son Ezekiel died of meningitis at Alberta Children’s Hospital in Calgary.