Photo: Nicholas Johansen
The death of a woman on the lake side in 2016 is being investigated again by the British Coronation Office.
Earlier this week, British Columbia Coroner Lisa LaPoint ordered an investigation into the death of Arlene Westervelt.
“The chief investigator has determined that it is in the public interest for another investigator to launch a new investigation to include any new or additional information that may help the public understand the circumstances surrounding Arlene Westerwelt’s death,” said Ryan Panton, a British spokeswoman. coroner’s office.
Arlene died while canoeing with her husband, Bert Westerwelt, near Okanagan Center in June 2016. While police said they initially considered her death a tragic accident, Burt was accused of second-degree murder nearly three years later.
But then, in July 2020, the British Columbia Prosecutor’s Office dropped the indictment, saying only that they had received “new information”.
Arlene’s family and friends are demanding an independent review of the investigation into her death since the indictment was dropped, and they have filed a civil lawsuit against both Bert and an RCMP employee who say they interfered in the investigation.
Arlene’s sister Debbie Hennig said the recently announced coroner’s death test was not the independent one they were looking for.
“While I appreciate LaPointe’s main coroner’s willingness to allow a review, I fear the internal review is pointless as it cannot address issues related to various actions and omissions by the BC Coroner’s Office on its own,” said Debbie Hennig.
“Given all the concerns surrounding this case, the only way to ensure a meaningful independent examination is to have it done by an anatomical forensic pathologist outside of British Columbia, not by a member of Lisa Lapoint’s own team behind closed doors. An external expert pathologist can give an objective opinion, which includes an honest assessment of the work and findings of the BC coroner. Only then will it be seen that justice has been restored. “
But Panton says the coroner’s investigation is “independent, impartial and objective.”
“The investigating physician has no personal interest in the outcome of the investigation, but will seek to ensure that all relevant information is collected and reviewed,” Panton said.
“The coroner’s investigation is focused on the facts of the death; in particular, the identity of the deceased and when, where, how and in what way the death occurred. Judicial investigators do not have the power to attribute guilt or determine guilt, but they are focused on establishing evidence-based facts.
In a press release, Henig claimed several problems with the investigation into her sister’s death, including:
- RCMP’s failure to treat death suspicious, despite calls from friends and family that Bert may be responsible
- Arlene’s body was embalmed before an autopsy could be performed
- A lawyer from Kelowna contacted police after her death to tell them that Arlene had met with him to discuss parting with Burt.
- RCMP Superintendent Brian Gateley, a friend of Burt’s, may have interfered in the investigation
In a protest in front of the court in Kelowna last summer, Denig’s lawyer Anthony Oliver said that the initial investigation into Arlene’s death was bad.
“These failures began with a crappy investigation by a local coroner who was not medically trained and who refused to conduct an autopsy in circumstances that clearly required him,” Oliver said.
“These failures continued with an autopsy on Arlene’s body, which was already severely damaged by the defendant’s actions, not by a certified general pathologist. I mean his decision to embalm the body instead of agreeing to my client’s request for an autopsy.
The cause of Arlene’s death has never been determined.
Chief Coroner Lapoint’s letter to Arlene Westervelt’s sister acknowledged the family’s disappointment at receiving information about her autopsy.
“The autopsy report contains exclusively personal and confidential information, and privacy laws allow the medical examiner to share this report only with certain individuals. Because your sister was married, her husband was identified as a close relative for the purpose of sharing information under the law, “LaPointe said.
“I realize that you and other members of your family are disappointed with your inability to obtain detailed information available to your next of kin. The medical examiner did his best to include as much information as possible in his report to satisfy your recognized desire for information. “
Add Comment