Python deaths: 'This could have been prevented by a simple action'

The now-retiredRCMPinvestigator who recommended charging Campbelltonpython-owner Jean-ClaudeSavoie in the deaths of two boys killed by a snake rejects the suggestion he bowed to interference from top RCMP brass.

RetiredInsp. MarcBertrand, 60, conducted the last of three RCMP reviews of the investigation into the deathsof Connor and NoahBarthe, who were killedin August 2013 by an African rock python while on asleepoverwithSavoie'sson.

Bertrand said he approached his review the way he would a cold case essentially as a fresh investigation, rather than as an examination of the files. He said he wasn't asked to recommend charging Savoie.

"I wasn't given the file to take it to the Crown," Bertrand said. "I was told to make sure the investigation is done the best it can be done."

• Jean-Claude Savoie found not guilty in python deaths of 2 boys
• RCMP boss briefed about python deaths hours before decision about charge changed
• 'People did not stay in their lanes': ex-RCMP investigator reflects on python case

Bertrandsaid he was brought in because the first two reviews simply looked at the original investigation file withoutreinterviewingwitnesses or seeking new information.

Theyoung brothers were killed by the 3.8-metre snake after it escaped its enclosure in Savoie's apartment and fell through ceiling tiles into the boys' room.

Review took 7 months

Bertrandsaid he worked on his review for at least seven months, interviewing witnesses again and talking to experts.In the end, he believed there was enough evidence to chargeSavoieand forwarded the case to the Crown.

Savoiewas charged with criminal negligence causing death and was later acquitted.

But the decision to chargeSavoiein the first place bewilderedanother former Mountie, who had also reviewed the case and concluded a charge wasn't warranted.

In an interview earlier this month, now-retired inspector GerryBelliveaupointed to what appeared to be the suspicious timing of the decision to chargeSavoie.

After the original investigationand two reviews concludedSavoiehadn't been negligent,RCMPCommissioner BobPaulsonwas briefed on the case.

Then, less than a day later, the Mountie who conducted the original investigation informedBelliveauin anemailthat the case was being forwarded to the Crown, meaning a charge was recommended.

Mountie mistake?

Bertrandbelieves that thisemail, by Cpl. GabrielDeveau, is the source of confusion about how the case was handled in its later stages.

He saidDeveauwas mistaken when he wrote that the case was being forwarded to the Crown.

"That's not how it happened because, really the file didn't go to the Crown for almost sevenor eight months after I took over. ...I got the file to kind of look at the whole thing and make sure all aspects all evidence available was put topaper, presented in the proper format and given to the Crown."

Attempts by CBC News to contact Deveau were unsuccessful.

Deveau, of the major crime unit in northern New Brunswick, did not recommend charging Savoie. Nor did two reviews of that investigation, by H Division in Halifax and by Belliveau, who was the acting superintendent for southeast New Brunswick at the time.

Handled like 'cold case'

However, Bertrand, working with another inspector and criminal analyst, came to the opposite conclusion.

"We kind of handled the case now as a cold case," he said.

• Jean-Claude Savoie's silence persists 3 years after python attack
• RCMP's handling of python case challenged by Jean-Claude Savoie's lawyer

The reviews by H Division andBelliveauwere "paper reviews" of the original investigation and might not have picked up on anything that was missed, Bertrand said.

The snake escaped through a ventilation pipe in the ceiling of its enclosure, then fell through the ceiling intothe adjoining living room, where it killed the sleeping brothers.

Marc Bertrand on the turning point in the Savoie case.

7 years ago

Duration 0:46

The now-retired RCMP investigator who recommended Campbellton python-owner Jean-Claude Savoie be charged in the deaths of two boys killed by a snake rejects the suggestion he bowed to interference from top RCMP brass.

Witnesses had told investigators of a previous escape attempt by the snake through the same pipe, with the snake getting stuck partway through the pipe before Savoie returned it toits enclosure.

A dryer-like vent cover was supposed to cover the pipe's opening but the coverwasn't affixedby screws or any other method after the first escape attempt. To Bertrand, the failure to secure a cover over the 3.5-inch-diameter pipe was key.

'This could have been prevented'

"What tips the scale is could this have been prevented?" he said. "In criminal negligence you have to look at was it a marked departure?

"We felt it was.We felt that this could have been prevented by a simple action that anybody could do."

• Python deaths trial hears mother say she never felt her boys were in danger
• Python deaths trial hears details of snake's attack on sleeping boys
• Python deaths 'a tragic accident,' defence argues

To establish criminal negligence, a person's actions have to be proven to be a marked departure from those of someone in a similar situation and shown to be reckless in putting others' safety at risk.

But Bertrand said Savoie's long history with snakes meant his actions had to be compared to someone with similar experience, not to a person with none.

"Mr.Savoieis not somebody who found the snake the day before," said Bertrand."He had years of experience working with snakes."

'In order to compare Mr.Savoiefor this marked departure, you have to find somebody who was similar in knowledge and abilityand experiences.'- Marc Bertrand, retired RCMP inspector

Bertrand said he talked to people with snake experience who told him they would have made sure the entrance to the pipe was blocked to prevent the snake from escaping into it.

"We had no evidence talking to all the witnesses and we did interview everybody we could find, people who do maintenance and so on there was no attempt by Mr.Savoieor anybody else that he would have directed to repair to prevent this from happening again," he said.

"That was the tipping point, I believe, for this case."

Found not guilty

A jury found Savoie not guilty in November 2016, and theCrown did not appeal the verdict.

"I have no issues with thatwhatsoever," said Bertrand.

"I truly believe we have the best system there is. Mr.Savoiewas found not guilty by his peers."

Bertrand said police investigate incidents to try to make people accountable and to create public awareness and deterrence.

"Other people in the circumstances like Mr.Savoienow understand there can beramificationsfor doing, or not doing something, or not caring properly for animals," said Bertrand.

"Orin this case, he didn't care properly for children."

• Python deaths case: 'It was a mistake' vs. 'It was a crime'