Ontario Nurse Charged With Eight Counts of 1st Degree Murder.
Quote:
A former nurse has been charged with murdering eight care-home residents in southwestern Ontario over seven years, a string of deaths that would make her among the worst serial killers in Canadian history.Elizabeth Wettlaufer, 49, of Woodstock, Ont., faces eight counts of first-degree murder, charges that have shaken the community and shocked families of the dead. Ms. Wettlaufer was taken into custody after a brief court appearance in the small city between Hamilton and London on Tuesday.
The deaths took place between 2007 and 2014, seven of them at a home in Woodstock and one at a home in London. Police say the alleged victims were given a fatal dose of a drug.
Although officers would not say what kind of drug, or how it was administered, a peace bond placed on Ms. Wettlaufer after police began investigating in late September reveals she was prohibited from possessing insulin, or any other medication unless prescribed for her personal use.
The alleged victims have been identified as James Silcox, 84, Maurice Granat, 84, Gladys Millard, 87, Helen Matheson, 95, Mary Zurawinski, 96, Helen Young, 90, Maureen Pickering, 78, and Arpad Horvath, 75.
Appears that the investigation was started after information that she shared during some form of rehab.
Quote:
The investigation that led to eight charges of first-degree murder against a Woodstock, Ont., nurse in the deaths of patients under her care started after police received information from a Toronto mental health facility.
A source has confirmed to Global News that Toronto police were called by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and officers attended the facility to interview Elizabeth Tracey Mae Wettlaufer, a 49-year-old registered nurse from Woodstock.
Wettlaufer provided information to hospital staff that caused them “concern,” The Canadian Press reported.
There are 6 new charges being brought against her today. Looks like they're doing further investigation and possibly even exhuming bodies to see if there are far more victims than they originally thought. New charges are 4 counts of attempted murder and 2 of aggravated assault.
Interesting how much the union went to bat for her immediately.
Quote:
Within hours of finding out Elizabeth Wettlaufer was suspended for making a medication error, the Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) filed a grievance on her behalf, a public inquiry heard Thursday.
There was no investigation about why Wettlaufer was being suspended or whether she had put patients at the Caressant Care nursing home in Woodstock, Ont., at risk. Last June, Wettlaufer was convicted of eight counts of first-degree murder, four counts of attempted murder and two counts of aggravated assault.
Sad that a murder could have been prevented if the union hadn't been so quick to step up. On the news last night the union case manager(I think) was on the stand and asked if she had experience to evaluate Wettlaufer's case. She said no, then she was asked if she used the resources available to her(the union apparently has people who could have evaluated) she said no.
Shouldn't a union make sure whoever they are defending was dismissed for good cause before going in full defence mode? Or are they required to defend no matter what?
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
I think the union defends no matter what. If you were wrongfully dismissed from a job and hired a lawyer should that lawyer evaluate your competence first or are they your advocate first.
Unions don't represent the public they represent the employees within the union. The failure would be on the employer if the person was allowed to continue work
I think the union defends no matter what. If you were wrongfully dismissed from a job and hired a lawyer should that lawyer evaluate your competence first or are they your advocate first.
Unions don't represent the public they represent the employees within the union. The failure would be on the employer if the person was allowed to continue work
Maybe it's just me but the union has an obligation to protect the other employees too and making sure a murderer sticks around is not beneficial to anyone.
What is the employer supposed to do? If the union has used their power to maintain employment for a murderer then the employer is limited in their options aren't they? If employers who had unionized employees could just ignore the rules of their collective bargaining and union agreement then the union would be useless.
Maybe it's just me but the union has an obligation to protect the other employees too and making sure a murderer sticks around is not beneficial to anyone.
What is the employer supposed to do? If the union has used their power to maintain employment for a murderer then the employer is limited in their options aren't they? If employers who had unionized employees could just ignore the rules of their collective bargaining and union agreement then the union would be useless.
Better documentation to support termination. Better negotiating terms when making the collective agreement. Building the case for cause. At this point she wasn't a murderer she made "errors" when administering medication. So protecting the ability of union members to get other jobs is in all of memberships best interests.
And Allingham kept pressing Caressant Care to seal Wettlaufer's personnel file, give her a letter of reference and a cash settlement even after Wettlaufer told her she'd gotten a new job at Meadow Park Long-Term Care in London, Ont., another nursing home for which Allingham was the labour relations officer.
Isn't this reckless behaviour and against public interest?
Basically asking Caressant Care to falsify a reference?
Better documentation to support termination. Better negotiating terms when making the collective agreement. Building the case for cause. At this point she wasn't a murderer she made "errors" when administering medication. So protecting the ability of union members to get other jobs is in all of memberships best interests.
From what I understand she had already killed 6 times at this point. What gets me is the union basically forced the previous employer to give her $2000 and a letter of recommendation.
Interesting how much the union went to bat for her immediately.
Quote:
Within hours of finding out Elizabeth Wettlaufer was suspended for making a medication error, the Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) filed a grievance on her behalf, a public inquiry heard Thursday. There was no investigation about why Wettlaufer was being suspended or whether she had put patients at the Caressant Care nursing home in Woodstock, Ont., at risk. Last June, Wettlaufer was convicted of eight counts of first-degree murder, four counts of attempted murder and two counts of aggravated assault.
Grievances have to be filed within a short timeframe. When the union filed the grievance they were doing so based on the information their member gave them about the suspension. It’s also possible that the employee was suspended pending an investigation without being told what the actual reason was.
From the article:
Quote:
Unknown to her co-workers, managers or union, Wettlaufer killed seven people while she worked at Caressant Care.
It’s somewhat misleading when the article states the union did no investigation before filing the grievance, their investigation was clearly ongoing and the grievance would bring to light the information required to determine whether or not the grievance would continue to be pursued or whether it would be withdrawn.
Sad that a murder could have been prevented if the union hadn't been so quick to step up. On the news last night the union case manager(I think) was on the stand and asked if she had experience to evaluate Wettlaufer's case. She said no, then she was asked if she used the resources available to her(the union apparently has people who could have evaluated) she said no.
Shouldn't a union make sure whoever they are defending was dismissed for good cause before going in full defence mode? Or are they required to defend no matter what?
They have to get a response from the employer to make that determination. They aren’t required to defend no matter what, but they are required to do their due diligence, which appears to be what they did.
What I’d like to know is why the employer didn’t call the authorities as soon as they were aware that a crime had potentially been committed.