When a Judge Says You Can’t Protect Your Loved Ones (Part 2)

This deserves a part 2.  

The above images are:

• the 4 at top are composite sketches of the Halifax Sleepwatcher.  
• Barry Sinclair who was charged but “Acquitted”

Sinclair was acquitted of the voyeurism charges (Sleepwatcher crimes), although he was convicted of a separate break-and-enter charge.  

As you can see from the sketches and photo above, the reason becomes clear as to why Barry Sinclair (see bottom row photo at left and adjacent sketch—AI produced from photo’s in order to realign his head more front facing).  The photo was the earliest taken by Police at the time of his arrest in 2011.  The  sketch that looks more like Gillman (second from left at top) at the time, was produced in 2010.  

I am a seasoned award winning artist, and from my expert opinion, that sketch looks nothing like Sinclair.   In fact, none of the sketches do.

What my artistic eye does detect, is that three of the sketches at the top row show very prominent/heavy brow ridge, which is a trait that I don’t see in Sinclair.  Any photo’s showing profile shots of Sinclair also do not reveal the same heavy brow ridge as detailed in the sketches.  AND in the third sketch, the sleepwatcher is wearing a ball cap, so the forehead is not visible.  

WHAT DOES THIS TELL ME?

It tells me that the sleepwatcher became aware that he needs to hide his heavy/prominent and IDENTIFYING brow ridge.  It also tells me that at least three victims  pointed out to the forensic artist, about his heavy brow ridge.  Something like that doesn’t occur except that it was more prominant than usual. 

Gillman has a very prominent, and projecting brow ridge.

What it also tells me is that it is now far more likely, that the 4 sketches are of the same person, and that the other differences, like the hat, can easily be attributed to various disguises  — pockmarks as described and shown in sketch 1, can easily be suggested with makeup;  monolid eyes as shown in sketch 2, are often created by non-Asian actors using tape, prosthetics, and makeup to artificially change their eye shape to look East Asian (that takes care of the one main thing that doesn’t look quite like Gillman in sketch 2– the mono-lid eyes)… but then, Gillman was an actor in high-school and had likely become aware of this technique).   I have to say though, that Gillman often squints in a way that looks a bit like the  2nd sketch.  

There are other common features with the first 4, they all have long faces, a prominent nose, rounded/pointy chin, and three in particular have astounding similar mouths.   All of their eyes are somewhat small and almond shaped.  

All features that are also similar to Gillman Payette’s. 

Another reason why the Judge acquitted Sinclair— a victim did not pick him out in a lineup.  AND, why would she, he hardly looks like a teen or in his early 20’s!   I think if Gillman were put in a lineup back then when in 2004 he would have been 22 years old, he may very well have been selected by all victims (I believe around  20 young women).

In reference to Gillman Payette, who is Cathy Bennett’s adult son, I made it very clear throughout proceedings, that the main reason I brought issues of abuse forward, and including my suspicion of Gillman as the Halifax Sleepwatcher (and possibly two other sex offender Police Sketches, one at the University of British Columbia and the other at Calgary (where Gillman lives), was for protection— it was my SCREAM!!  As I explained in my previous post, and explained well enough in court filed materials— ie: Affidavits.  

It was what I needed to do in order to safely move forward.  Simply put, attention as to the criminal activity involving certain individuals pertaining to this case— the lies of Cathy Bennett  furthered by lies of her two friends, Barb Sawatsky and Christine Scott, and then her son Gillman Payette, and yes, even my well grounded suspicion of Gillman as Halifax Sleepwatcher, … all this brought forward was necessary part of my case AND not of least importance, it was for the protection it offered my loved ones and I as I chose to move forward to seek and battle for my rightful share of our property, … and clearing the tarnish from my good name would be added bonus.  

It would seem to those reviewing my case, that things turned for the worst for me, but this is not true from my perspective.  It was a turn is all, a turn among many in this prey herding pursuit. 

Note this excerpt from paragraph 65 of the Trial Decision: 

• Before Ms. Ocean made these claims against Ms. Bennett’s child, an unrelated third party had already been charged for these crimes.

By the way, Ms. Bennett’s “child” at the time when the sleepwatcher began his spree in 2004, was 22 years old.  Justice Chiasson doesn’t specifically mention what  “crimes” she’s referring to , but I consider her reference is to the Sleepwatcher crimes.  It may be that she’d come back with the UBC or Calgary perpetrator crimes, but it doesn’t matter.  I’ll address the same matter that occurs with the man charged for these sleepwatcher crimes— Barry Sinclair.    I had given evidence at paragraph 132 of my  June 7, 2023 Affidavit.  The  paragraph begins: 

• “After I left my home of 27 years on the evening of January 2, 2021…”, 

and later in the same paragraph I continued with:

• “…police had a man in custody who they charged for the crimes, but the suspect was acquitted at trial…”
   

So in this case, Sinclair was not only charged, but he was assuredly ACQUITTED!!

Now getting back to the other two sketches on the bottom row to the right.  It is unmistakable, the resemblance between the UBC stalker sketch and the Sleepwatcher sketches— long nose, long face, rounded-pointy chin.  As I said before, check out images of Gillman Payett on line, and you will then see the connected resemblance to him… and oh… did I mention that he was at UBC at some point… I believe 2013.  Where he has a Doctorate, he attended many universities, not just for his degree, but to attend various events, seminars, and in some cases as Guest speaker , … and of course, researcher. 

Now onto another topic. 

There were things that the perpetrators attending the dinner party of 5 as described in my court case, had to admit to even though Barb, Christine and Cathy denied events as discussed during the phone call of January 2, 2021 (the big lie that then led to flee my home of 27 years).  For one, I was pretty sure that Gillman would have to admit his rage having been so intense that he snapped the stem of the wine glass he was holding, and cutting his hand deeply in the process.  I know this because he had finished working on the research project with his once Professor at Dalhousie, and so was leaving the next day for his home and family in  Calgary.  He would have to explain something to Pam and Emma about the cut.  This was precisely one of the main reasons why I originally had Pam on my witness list, but this was denied to me by Justice Chiasson.  Gillman would not want Pam to catch him in a lie, should the truth come out, and so the group rallied around how to manipulate things so the Judge has something to then grasp on.  Yes, “grasp on”… and yes, I am implying that she already was biased against me and so was given all that she needed.  I will talk about all her potential bias in another post.  

 I can’t say that I know the rational behind why I was not allowed certain witnesses by the trial Judge, but it certainly hampered my case.   So another haunting WHY to the long list of WHY’S ?!

Regardless, it seems that the “rebuttal” aspect as put forward by Justice Chiasson worked, because those present at the dinner party of 5– yes Cathy her three accomplices, Barb, Christine, Gillman, … and then  I, were in unanimous agreement that Gillman’s outburst (that the judge then downplayed to “frustration”) resulted in his snapping the wine glass he was holding.   Snapping the stem of a wine glass from simple frustration — c’mon… is this a joke?   My evidence is that  Gillman’s rages and outbursts resulted in  clenched his fist as though to strike.  So he did as per usual— clenched his fist so tight in a rage and to posture threateningly, that he snapped the stem of his wine glass.  

Note from my September 9, 2024 Trial Affidavit, at paragraph 77:

• “From the many episodes of abuse that I witnessed, Gillman’s outbursts toward his mother began with a sudden verbally violent and misogynistic attack, that included him posturing in a manner that threatened physical abuse, and often included threats of suicide.”

I  then described Cathy stepping back while Gillman:

• “advanced toward her with clenched fist and a wild frenzied look in his eyes.”

And then I stated:

• “I would then intervene, standing in front of Gillman to block his advance, and not budge. This wasn’t easy, as I was afraid that he would hit me. I didn’t reveal my fear, but stood my ground and demanded in a forthright manner, that he stop his advance immediately and back away.”

I continued that he would come very close and be “in my face intimidatingly,” although I said he never actually touched me.  

The four other dinner party members however, did provide false information and allegations pertaining to that evening, but I won’t get into that at this point.  THAT is another major rats nest of a scene requiring its own separate post. 

It suffices to say that there were incidences of abuse by Gillman, that were agreed on by several witnesses  and including some  as witnessed by my daughter, Erin who testified she saw his rages.  The abuse that Cathy pins on me are from Cathy herself and her two cohorts Barb and Christine.  THAT is it, scrupulous unreliable and lacking in credibility witnesses.  The Judge totally ignored my evidence and my good character.  So another question we need to be asking is WHY?  AGAIN!   And so leading to other questions : 

Could bias play a part?!  It is part of my Appeal pleadings.  What kind of bias could be factoring in? THAT, as I stated above, is for another day and Post. 

The following are words Erin and I used to describe Gillman’s abuses.  Erin’s trial evidence at p. 131 was explicit:

• “Gillman had a tendency to go into rages as a child; like, I witnessed those.”

She also answered that she was worried about “his rage” as well as his safety during the cliff incident. 

I also used the word rage in questioning Gillman at trial. At pp. 507–508, I asked him whether the cliff incident was “a rage,” and then referred to other episodes as “those rages.”  Gillman himself answered:

• “I think there were times where I remember being in rage as an adolescent, yes.”

and later:

• “I recognize now that I was in a rage…” 

Separately, my affidavits repeatedly used “outbursts,” “violent outburst,” “violent episodes,” and similar language. So the record was not limited to mild terms like “behavioural difficulties”; “rage/rages” was actually used in sworn testimony.

 Some other  actual words in the record include:

• —Erin: “rages,” “I witnessed those,” “very upset,” “scary,” “wouldn’t come down.”
• —Me: “continual threats,” “outbursts,” “damaging to myself and others,” “very dangerous,” “scared to shit,” “threats of death,” “horror and terror.”
• —Gillman: “there is no doubt I had outbursts.”

That is much stronger than the Decision’s softer characterization of the conduct as merely “behavioural difficulties,” “poor behavioural choices,” and teenage “turmoil.”

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Evidence Materials relied on for the above: 

From  my June 7, 2023 Affidavit, at paragraph 132 that was entered into evidence: 

• “I read follow up articles and including one where police had a man in custody who they charged for the crimes, but the suspect was acquitted at trial. I find it hard to believe that this suspect was even considered as he was much older than all of the victims descriptions.”

That paragraph also says I had found the Coast article, compared the composite sketches, and noted police reporting that the perpetrator was thought likely to be a student.

Relevant excerpts from sections of the trial decision: 

[58] Evidence indicated that the child struggled with mental health issues during their teenage years. The adult child admitted to difficulties with mental health in their childhood.

[64] These concerns continued to be raised by Ms. Ocean despite insignificant contact between the adult child and the parties. Allegations made against Ms. Bennett’s child did not abate after they left home and new allegations continued to be made by Ms. Ocean for years. Ms. Ocean went as far as to implicate Ms. Bennett’s child in criminal activity as an adult.

[65] Ms. Ocean contacted Crime Stoppers, the adult child’s current employer, media, and others – all in an effort to convince third parties of her belief of the adult child’s criminal actions. She drew sketches of the adult child in an effort to show similarities with an alleged criminal. Despite Ms. Ocean’s efforts, no criminal charges were laid against Ms. Bennett’s adult child. Before Ms. Ocean made these claims against Ms. Bennett’s child, an unrelated third party had already been charged for these crimes.

[66] Despite this, Ms. Ocean continued throughout the present hearing to allege criminal involvement by Ms. Bennett’s child. There is no evidentiary basis whatsoever for the allegations of Ms. Ocean against Ms. Bennett’s adult child.