During the disciplinary tribunal for Const. Helen Grus, the hearing officer, Chris Renwick, made a decision not to allow an email chain between Grus and a witness for the prosecution to be entered as evidence. Grus, an officer with the Ottawa Police Service’s sexual assault and child abuse unit, is facing charges of discreditable conduct related to her investigation into a possible link between infant deaths and the “COVID-19 vaccines.” The prosecution has accused Grus of conducting herself insubordinately and conducting unauthorized searches in the police records system.
Grus’s defense team argued that she noticed an increase in infant deaths and used this information as part of her inquiry. However, Renwick sided with the prosecution’s objection to entering the email exchange as evidence, claiming “public interest privilege” and citing the presence of confidential police information in the emails.
During cross-examination, Staff Sergeant Shelley Rossetti, a former top officer in the sexual assault and child abuse unit, acknowledged Grus’s exceptional record as a detective with excellent investigative abilities. However, Renwick also sustained the prosecution’s objection to the defense’s questioning of Rossetti’s notebook, despite Rossetti having it in her possession and referring to it while testifying.
This decision sparked frustration from Grus’s defense lawyers, who argued that they had a right to know what the witness was looking at. They described Renwick’s rulings as an “abusive process” and suggested that they may appeal.
On another day of the tribunal, Renwick also sided with the prosecution’s objection to disclosing and entering Grus’s duty book into evidence. The duty book, composed by Grus herself in her capacity as a detective, was requested by the defense. Renwick’s decision raised concerns about the fairness and transparency of the proceedings.
Renwick has made it clear that the hearing will not be a platform for opinions or theories linking COVID vaccines to child deaths. The defense intends to present expert witnesses to support their claim that Grus’s inquiry into the possible links between infant deaths and COVID vaccines was justified. However, Renwick will decide on the admissibility of these expert witnesses.
The proceedings have garnered attention due to the sensitive nature of the case and the potential implications for the ongoing discussion around COVID vaccines. Critics argue that the limitations placed on the defense’s ability to present evidence and question witnesses raise concerns about the fairness of the tribunal.
As the hearing continues, the focus will be on the decisions made by Renwick and their impact on the outcome of the case. Grus’s defense team will need to make a compelling argument to support their client’s actions and counter the prosecution’s allegations of misconduct. The outcome of the tribunal will have implications not only for Grus’s career but also for the broader discussions surrounding vaccine safety and the responsibilities of law enforcement officers.