Women form 'Wall of Moms' to protect protesters after Trump sends troops into Portland

Guests: Brenna Burnett, Ashlee Albies

SOUNDCLIP

[Sounds from BLM protests in Portland]

RB: Nearly two months after George Floyd was killed by police in Minneapolis, protests across the United States haven't just continued, in some places, they have been intensifying. What you're hearing now are scenes from Portland, Oregon, where over the past few days, the presence of federal agents in the city has become a flashpoint.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sounds from protests in Portland]

RB: President Trump says the federal agents are there to protect federal monuments and buildings, but their actions against protesters are being condemned by local officials. Here's the mayor of Portland, Ted Wheeler.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: What's happening here is we have dozens, if not hundreds of federal troops descending upon our city and what they're doing is they are sharply escalating the situation. Their presence here is actually leading to more violence and more vandalism. They're not wanted here. We haven't asked them here. In fact, we want them to leave.

RB: Well, citizens and civil rights groups are also voicing concerns as agents have been seen picking up protesters in unmarked vans and using pepper spray, tear gas and in some cases, violence. And that is what has spurred a new group to form. It is made up of dozens of women wearing yellow, wielding sunflowers and linking arms to form a wall between Black Lives Matter protesters and federal agents.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sounds from Wall of Moms protests]

RB: Well, they call themselves the Wall of Moms. And not sure you can hear it, but they're chanting, "Feds stay clear, the moms are here." Brenna Burnett is one of those moms. She joins us from Portland, Oregon. Brenna, good morning.

BRENNA BURNETT: Good morning.

RB: Why did you want to be part of this wall of moms?

BRENNA BURNETT: I am committed to the lifelong goal of being anti-racist. As a white woman of privilege, I think it's incredibly important right now to stand up and speak up. And I want to teach my daughter the same values.

RB: You were out protesting again last night. What was the scene like?

BRENNA BURNETT: It was pretty incredible. We marched from the Justice Center throughout, we walked down to the murals that spanned almost an entire block. And marched back and Don't Shoot Portland has done a fantastic job organizing. We, speakers, everybody came together, we chanted. It was very powerful.

RB: How did enforcements how did those officers respond to you?

BRENNA BURNETT: I left before we saw any presence of the feds last night. It was surprising. I made it to midnight, just a bit before and there was no sign of them, which is different from how it was the night before.

RB: What was it like the night before?

BRENNA BURNETT: They were out. We were, there was a sense along the courthouse, and they were coming in and out of the building. But there was always this very, very clear divide between us and them. I do know that things escalated last night and four of our moms were arrested.

RB: Four of the moms were arrested? What were they? Well, I mean, do you know circumstance? What was happening?

BRENNA BURNETT: Peacefully protesting. I know one of the moms was pushed on the ground. I have not heard updates beyond that. Our organizer has been phenomenal and she's been on top of making sure those moms get out. They have the resources they need and are safe.

RB: You say you left before those arrests happened, before the police presence came out, but I suppose I mean, that could have been you. Are you willing to be arrested? Are you willing to be taken in?

BRENNA BURNETT: I am. My daughter, before I left last night said, make sure you wear all of your gear, Mama. And if you get arrested, dad will be right there.

RB: How old's your daughter?

BRENNA BURNETT: She's four and a half.

RB: How are you explaining to her why you were out there at night?

BRENNA BURNETT: I've been very honest and upfront with her of what has been taking place this entire time. We watched protest videos before and I've just, I've explained that because we are white, there is privilege and we need to use that privilege. And right now that's showing up as a mom and we form a wall to protect the protesters until there is no one left to defend.

RB: Judging from the photos, it is largely white women forming this wall of moms. Do you think that you would be treated differently if you were black mothers protesting.

BRENNA BURNETT: Absolutely. Black mothers have been on the frontlines fighting for decades and the media has is only now paying attention because they're white moms. I think we would be met with incredible force compared to what has happened. It's blatant racism. I reached out to a news outlet here to share my experience and what I saw happening with, the protesters are non-violent. Black Lives Matter is not an instigator of these riots that the feds are saying that are happening. I watched some anarchists kind of start everything the night before last and the second I shared that's what I wanted to talk about they became curt and said, we'll call you back. And they never did. It's black voices are being silenced and there's the focus has been put on white moms showing up and that is not why we are there.

RB: From what I have heard, you have kind of placed yourself with this wall of moms in between the protesters and the federal agents. I mean, what was that like? What's that been like to be in the middle of it?

BRENNA BURNETT: Scary at times, if I'm being very honest. There are moments where it's scary. We are using our privilege and as mommas to you know, take the brunt if if we need to. Black lives in our country are murdered, they're jailed, the injustice is outrageous and if we as moms can come together and be a force to start change, we want to do that.

RB: What are you thinking about as you are there linked to arm in arm with fellow mommas. What kinds of things are going through your mind?

BRENNA BURNETT: An escape route. We always go in buddies and get to know the mommas next to us. And we kind of, we talk and we come up with a okay, if this gets bad and we need to go, we're going to go, you know, we lay out our plan and make sure that everybody is going to be safe.

RB: What kind of message do you think it sends to the federal government when they see this row of mothers arms linked standing up together?

BRENNA BURNETT: That they need to leave. This is completely unacceptable and it takes away from the fact that from cause. It takes away from Black Lives Matter. They need to get out. It's. Our country is feeling very, very much like you read about Nazi Germany feeling like. And I don't think it's a federal level, change is going to happen until change happens within our state and more people on government level step up.

RB: You have to wonder if those federal agents will leave. I mean, President Trump sounds resolved not to back down. In fact, he said yesterday that he plans to send federal law enforcement to Chicago and other cities controlled by Democrats. How do you think all of this is going to end?

BRENNA BURNETT: Very good question, and it keeps me up at night. I don't think anything will change until the election. Everybody has to show up to vote. Nothing will change until that happens.

RB: Brenna, thank you for taking the time to talk to us. I know you were up late last night, so thank you.

BRENNA BURNETT: Absolutely. Thank you so much.

RB: Take care. That's Brenna Burnett. She's a florist and a mother in Portland, Oregon. She joined in a protest with other moms on Sunday night and again last night, making a human wall between protesters and federal agents.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: More federal law enforcement that I can tell you in Portland, they've done a fantastic job. They've been there three days. No problem. They grab them. A lot of people in jail, their leaders. These are anarchists. These are not protesters. People say protesters, these people are anarchists. These are people that hate our country and we're not gonna let it go forward.

RB: President Donald Trump said yesterday he is prepared to send in more federal agents to Portland and to other American cities if needed. But the use of federal law enforcement has raised concerns that civil liberties are under attack by the Trump administration. Ashlee Albies is a civil rights lawyer who works with the National Lawyers Guild. She is in Portland where she's been watching the events there unfold with growing alarm. Good morning, Ashlee.

ASHLEE ALBIES: Good morning, Robyn.

RB: Who exactly are these federal officers on the streets of Portland right now?

ASHLEE ALBIES: So we've seen a number of federal agents from different agencies, from the U.S. Marshal Service, from Department of Homeland Security. The ones at issue that are attacking protesters are from the Customs and Border Patrol. They have a tactical unit called Vortak. And it's essentially been described as the Custom and Border Patrol equivalent of a SWAT team.

RB: It looks and sounds like they are wearing military type of fatigues. They're wearing camouflage, helmets, they have assault rifles with them. What's that like seeing them on your city streets?

ASHLEE ALBIES: It's pretty intimidating for many people. It's terrifying for other people, especially from folks that come from you know, more oppressive regimes outside of this country. It's incredibly triggering for many of our immigrant populations and refugee community members, but it's also enraging. And so I heard the interview with the mother protester in the segment before this and, you know, it has brought out many more protesters. The protests were somewhat, say, kind of quieting a little bit. You know, we're we're here in the 50s days of protests here. And prior to the feds coming in, there was kind of a rhythm to the protest. Once the Trump sent federal agents in and they began attacking protesters, it really invigorated the protests. And even last night, the reports show that there were maybe a thousand or more protesters that that demonstrated down downtown in front of the federal courthouse in front of the federal building.

RB: You heard from our previous guest that four moms from the wall of moms were arrested last night, according to to her reports. Who else is being targeted by these agents?

ASHLEE ALBIES: So protesters and who we've heard Donald Trump ramp up his rhetoric around ANTIFA, around violent anarchists, but we're seeing that none of that is actually accurate. But we're seeing protesters, people who are just present, being impacted by tear gas, by impact munitions. By when I say impact munitions, I mean less lethal weapons, "less lethal weapons" They're being shot with rubber bullets, they're being pepper sprayed directly with with pepper spray and it hurts. There's a video that has been circulating on one of the early days that the federal government came to town, a peaceful protester was standing across from the federal courthouse holding a speaker over his head and was shot in the head by federal agents with, "less lethal weapons." He ended up in the hospital and in surgery and it's my understanding that he's still in hospital. So that the people that are being targeted are everyone and everyone who's engaging in protests and that's deeply concerning to many people in the city. And that is why are many leaders in both state and city governments have called for federal agents to leave Portland, as well as many community members. That is the majority of the chants that you hear is for the feds to go home.

RB: I want you to take a listen to a clip that we have, because one of our sister programs here in the CBC, As It Happens, spoke to one of the protesters yesterday. Just take a listen to what Mark Pettibone described what happened to him.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: A van pulled up in front of me and I tried to flee and they tracked me down and threw me into the van. This was an unmarked van. They didn't state who they were with. They pulled my my beanie over my face and held my hands over my head and they drove me into a large garage. And I didn't know who they were until, you know, they brought me into what I would later learn was the federal courthouse. There it was kind of a series of facing walls and being patted down more and having my belongings taken. They took a photo of me with what appeared to be an iPhone and cuffed my hands and ankles and put me into a cell.

RB: I mean Ashlee, is that even legal?

ASHLEE ALBIES: So we would say no. I see that as a intimidation tactic, not just picking somebody up for an alleged violation of law. We've heard very vague statements about what this person was even suspected of. The Fourth Amendment in the US Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and there needs to be some kind of reasonable suspicion to even talk to somebody. Your law enforcement and you have the right to not talk to law enforcement under our U.S. Constitution, but in order to arrest someone, you need probable cause. And the description that's coming out about what this person was suspected of. It doesn't appear that there was probable cause. But, you know, these tactics, again, are designed to intimidate people. We've seen protests and mass movements on a scale that is unprecedented in this country in support of Black Lives Matter and protesting police violence. That in and of itself is a threat to the Trump administration, given their embracing of white nationalism and racism. And so the specific content, the reasons why people are protesting against police violence, against state repression, targeting black people, the federal response is to try and silence these voices and silence this protest, but it's not working.

RB: Well, and you have people like the governor of Oregon, you have local officials, you have the mayor criticising this federal enforcement force. I mean who's in charge exactly?

ASHLEE ALBIES: That's a very good question. I will add also our state attorney general has recently filed a lawsuit against the federal government, specifically challenging the type of kidnappings that you just described and we just heard from Mr. Pettibone.

RB: So is there an answer to that question? I mean, when you consider all the local authorities saying, you know, they want this force out, they don't agree with it. Who has the power?

ASHLEE ALBIES: Well, I mean, I think the president certainly has the power to pull back these troops and Congress has the ability and the authority to provide checks on the executive level of government. That's the president's office and what he's doing. So it's going to take a combination of work from Congress and protesters in the street and applied and continuous and sustained political pressure. I saw a recent poll that more people than ever before support the Black Lives Matter movement in the United States and across the across the globe. There is a true reckoning that the policies and practises of racist policing in this country are unsustainable and are not going to be continue to be tolerated by what is now reaching a majority of people.

RB: I mean, President Trump, sorry to interrupt, but President Trump said that he sent this force to Portland because the locals could not handle it. Is that at all a fair assessment?

ASHLEE ALBIES: No, absolutely not. It's the locals have made very clear that they reject the president sending troops in to the state of Oregon. It's interesting because on some respects with coronavirus and the requirement of mass, President Trump has been incredibly supportive of states' rights in some in some realms. But when it comes to messaging and protests in support of black lives and pushing back against state violence, all of a sudden he feels that it's appropriate to send in the troops to to protect federal property. So there is a disconnect there, not inconsistent with the other kinds of disconnects we've seen from this administration.

RB: We'll leave it there for this morning. Ashlee, thank you very much for taking the time to join us.

ASHLEE ALBIES: Thank you. Take care.

RB: You too. That's Ashlee Albies. She is a civil rights lawyer who works with the National Lawyers Guild and we reached her in Portland, Oregon. The CBC News is coming up next. And then.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.

VOICE 2: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

VOICE 1: What's the problem?

VOICE 2: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.

VOICE 1: What are you talking about HAL?

VOICE 2: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

RB: Well, maybe HAL-9000 is not the best example, but has the pandemic made you rethink your relationship with technology? Coming up, well, you might think that you never want to participate in another Zoom meeting again, we'll meet a man who argues the time is right to press for more technology in our lives. And specifically, it is time to open the door to robots. I'm Robyn Bresnahan. Stay tuned. This is The Current.

[Music]

How robots can help in post-COVID times

Guests: Brian Scassellati, Andre Picard

RB: Hello. I'm Robyn Bresnahan and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: theme]

RB: And still to come, The Globe and Mail's health columnist, Andre Picard joins us to talk about promising new research in the quest for a COVID-19 vaccine. But first, it's man's best friend, but swap the poop and scoop for some nuts and bolts.

[Music: theme]

SOUNDCLIP

[Clip from Star Wars]

C-3PO: A pleasure to meet you. I am C-3PO human cyborg relations.

RB: Imagine waking up during the past few months to C-3PO rattling away at you. We're not living in Star Wars times, but to some of you, this pandemic has probably felt like a parallel universe. Before COVID-19 the idea of daily zoo meetings and virtual classrooms might have seemed far off, but the future has been fast tracked and some are saying, why stop there? This might actually be the perfect time to introduce even more futuristic bits of technology into our lives, including robots. Brian Scassellati is a computer scientist at Yale University. That's where he heads up the school's social robotics lab. And he joins us now. Brian, hello.

BRIAN SCASSELLATI: Good morning.

RB: First of all, can you tell us what is meant by social robots exactly?

BRIAN SCASSELLATI: What we mean is robots that are able to interact with people using the same kinds of social interaction that you would use with another person. So things that respond to our voice, things that respond to gestures, things that understand the way that we engage with each other.

RB: Give us an example. What is something that a social robot might do?

BRIAN SCASSELLATI: So a social robot, for example, might try to anticipate what you're doing in the way that my wife might bring me a very nice cup of coffee in the morning before I've even asked for one. Knowing that that's something that I usually like. So these are robots that pay attention to our habits, that pay attention to what we might be trying to do, pay attention to what we're focused on at any given moment.

RB: Why do you think that this is the right time to start talking about how we might be introducing some of these social robots into our homes?

BRIAN SCASSELLATI: These robots are coming out regardless of the pandemic. And in fact, we've seen these robots starting to be deployed over the last 15 years more and more, but typically for only specialized populations. We're seeing them being used with seniors in elder care. We're seeing them being used in education. We're seeing them being used in work with individuals with specific disabilities. But the pandemic has brought out a set of conditions where we're seeing them more and more in everyone's homes, when suddenly everyone is having to deal with these very unusual and very challenging situations.

RB: Specifically, I mean, what holes do you think that the pandemic has revealed that these robots might help fill?

BRIAN SCASSELLATI: So we've been looking at ways that robots are helping us with maintaining our social distancing. Robots that are helping us to overcome that feeling of social isolation that many of us are now facing. And robots that are helping with specific things that come about because of that social isolation: screening for depression, looking for ways in which we might be able to use them to hone our job skills as we come back out into the workforce.

RB: Can you, I mean, you mentioned a number of things there. Let's take them one at a time.

BRIAN SCASSELLATI: Absolutely.

RB: The social distancing part or the physical distancing, how can a robot help with that?

BRIAN SCASSELLATI: One of the things we've been working with right now is working with younger children. I have a 10-year-old and I have two teenagers. And when the pandemic started, my teenagers were immediately on their phones, chatting with their friends, texting to each other, and they had that social contact that they were used to. But my 10-year-old had a real difficulty with it. He wasn't used to using electronic means. And in fact, kids of that age are really more accustomed to direct physical interaction. So one of the things that we've built over the last couple of months is a simple application where kids can use a robot in another child's home and have some direct physical play. So one child can basically remotely control and effectively become the robot drive around in another child's home, maintain their social distancing, but still get some social interaction with another child their age.

RB: I can hear people yelling at the radio. Isn't that the job of humans? Isn't that the job of parents and siblings to do that?

BRIAN SCASSELLATI: It absolutely is. And it absolutely is what we want to be happening. But we know that we have many kids who are single children. We have many kids whose parents are struggling between maintaining their own jobs and trying to do distance education for their children. And some of these other things are just falling by the wayside. But even with that, kids need to play with other kids and so that's a role that we really want to see, not fall by the wayside.

RB: Some of your work suggests that kids can actually learn better from robots. In what ways exactly?

BRIAN SCASSELLATI: In some ways, we've seen this with specific populations. I work a lot with children with autism. And for many of these kids, we've been building tutoring systems, robots that actually go in and teach social skills that allow a child to more easily interact with their parents, that train them on using typical social behaviours like making eye contact and responding to questions. And we use them as part of therapy for building the social capabilities of these children.

RB: Of course, it's not just kids who are feeling lonely and perhaps quite isolated at the moment. You mentioned seniors there as well. How do you think that robots could help, say, perhaps in a long term care setting?

BRIAN SCASSELLATI: Absolutely. So we know we don't want physical contact with many of our seniors, with people who are at risk or immunocompromised, but we want them to maintain their interactions with their friends and their family. And in some ways, these remote operation, we're tele operation systems allow them to get that feeling of being better. I know one family who's been using it so that the grandparents can be part of the children's birthday parties. And the parties are, you know, obviously very small within the family. But suddenly your grandparent can be there and can interact with the children, can interact with the rest of the family, can move around on their own. And they get that feeling that they're still part of what's going on. And that's what we want to encourage.

RB: I'm n ot sure if I totally understand it. So how does that work? So the robot is essentially like a screen with a grandparent on it.

BRIAN SCASSELLATI: Exactly. And they can control it. They can move around. They can have a smaller, quieter conversation with one of the parents or speak to the entire room in a way that you can't usually get on a flat screen.

RB: Just out of curiosity. How much would a robot like that cost?

BRIAN SCASSELLATI: There are many different ones that are out there. One of the challenges we've had is that we weren't really built for this at this point. We didn't have the infrastructure in place. But many of these are not very expensive. Some of these mobile screens are in the range of a few hundred dollars for the ones that we've been using with children with social isolation. They cost just over about $120 USD.

RB: Can you really feel less lonely being with a robot rather than another person?

BRIAN SCASSELLATI: But that's the point. We don't want you to be with a robot. We want you to use the robot to be with someone else.

RB: But are you worried that, for instance, a care home might say, you know, one of the heartbreaking things about this pandemic is the fact that, you know, real people, real relatives have not been able to go into care homes and see their their loved ones and in large quantities, especially when they are very vulnerable. I mean, might a care home say, well, I mean they have robots. They're fine. I mean, are you worried that the scale might tip too far to the robot side?

BRIAN SCASSELLATI: I don't think so. I don't think anyone is really looking at this and saying the robots are going to replace people here, that this is going to become the de facto standard. We want to see each other. We want to be able to reach out and touch each other and give someone a hug in a way that you can't with a robot. So I think this is, you know, a temporary way of filling a gap, but it's not a permanent replacement.

RB: Brian, nice to talk to you this morning. Thank you.

BRIAN SCASSELLATI: Thank you very much.

RB: That was Brian Scassellati. He's a computer scientist and head of the social robotics lab at Yale University. Listening to that conversation was Andre Picard. He is the health columnist for the Globe and Mail and he's been a regular part of The Current's COVID-19 coverage. And we've reached him in Montreal. Andre, good morning.

ANDRE PICARD: Good morning.

RB: Did that conversation make you want to have a social robot in your life?

ANDRE PICARD: Not especially, but, you know, I've seen them used very well. For example, in Japan, they're very much used with elder care. So there are uses for it, but I, know, as he said at the end, I don't think there's any substitute for us for a hug of your grandma or of your child. And with COVID, one of the biggest symptoms of COVID-19 has been that we're all touched starved after all these months. So I think there's a use for them, but not a substitution.

RB: Where do you think there might be a use for them in particular?

ANDRE PICARD: Well, you know, if you see them in the elder care homes, they can have these interactions, have a screen where you can talk to people. Now, again, there are limitations. It doesn't work too well for people with dementia. The robots are actually used to do tasks in other countries. They're quite advanced to some of the work of PSWs for example. So it's all kinds of uses that we're going to use them a lot more in schools I think now, the way we're changing how schools are operating. So I think we have to use our imagination a little bit, but not forget that human touch part.

RB: Sticking on the topic of scientific innovation, there were some promising news yesterday about clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines out of the UK, out of China as well. Can you tell us about some of those early findings?

ANDRE PICARD: So we're starting to get, we're well watching very closely for is there going to be a vaccine? So there's some good promising early news. The Oxford Group, which people learn, is one of the leading groups, reported that their vaccine camp babies is safe. So it doesn't harm people who it was tested on and it induces some immune response. So that's promising. It means that there's a reaction. But this is a long way from knowing if it'll protect us from the coronavirus that has to go into that the next stage, stage three, actually trying this on humans being exposed to the virus. So promising news, but still a long way off. And with the Chinese vaccine, similar information, but preprint, so we don't know how good the information is. But all this tiny steps towards maybe a vaccine someday.

RB: When you say a long way off, how long?

ANDRE PICARD: Well, that's the great unknown. This is a unprecedented amount of effort being put into a vaccine. But realistically, we're probably talking about years. People are talking about a year, 18 months. You know, just to know if there's a vaccine and then there's the whole production aspect, et cetera. So it's not tomorrow.

RB: And there's also the question of who gets the vaccine first. If it is developed by the Oxford Group, for example, we already know that the British government has ordered millions of doses of this vaccine and other vaccines as well. Some people are calling it vaccine nationalism. I mean, who gets the vaccine? Who's prioritized?

ANDRE PICARD: Well, there's gonna be a huge ethical issue. Right? And we have these discussions all the time about drugs, about food, who has access. How do you do that equitably? And this is something like a pandemic just brings these issues into there to the fore. And this discussion is long from over. Will we ever get a vaccine in the first place? And if we do, then how do we distribute it? How do we price it fairly? How do we ensure some people aren't left to the curb, but there's a lot a lot of issues to be to be resolved here.

RB: And who decides that? Is it individual governments? Is it the World Health Organization? I mean who actually governs who gets the vaccine?

ANDRE PICARD: Well, there's not really oversight. Mostly it's ruled by the markets or it's ruled by capitalism. He who has the most money gets what they want. We saw that with the US bought up the entire world stock of a drug Remdesivir. That's a potential problem with the vaccines. So we have to figure this stuff out. Is it just the wealthiest? Whoever can pay gets it? Is it whoever owns the plant gets it? We don't know.

RB: In the meantime, we're still trying to contain the virus in parts of this country. Alberta, you've seen, was not a hotspot. It's now seeing a surge in new infections. BC's provincial health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry warned of the potential for "explosive growth" in that province after 102 cases over the weekend. Why do you think that we're seeing these surges now?

ANDRE PICARD: Well, this is a phenomenon we're seeing around the world. This pandemic rebound, so we get things under control. We let our guard down. We get out and about, stop the physical distancing, and then it creates once again the circumstances for the virus to spread. So it's it's about vigilance. You know, we know in Canada, in Quebec in particular, a lot of the new cases are are driven by bars, by individual parties. So people getting together in groups larger than they should. So it's always comes down to the same basic stuff. We have to keep washing our hands. We have to keep our physical distance. We have to not gather in huge groups. You know, we've extended that a bit. It's not just lock yourself in your home anymore, but keep your groups to a minimum. When you start getting parties full of 200 people, house parties with 50, 100 people like we're seeing in many cities, that's when this explosive growth that Dr. Henry talked about happens.

RB: The Public Health Agency of Canada says that during the second week of July, the largest proportion of new cases across the country was amongst people in their 20s. I mean, here in Ottawa where I am, we're seeing that play out. You know, of the 20 new confirmed cases yesterday, seven were teenagers. Five were in their 20s. Four were children, nine and younger. What might be some of the reasons for that?

ANDRE PICARD: Well, again, it's just the contact people are getting together. Young people party more than older people. They feel, you know, they don't feel at risk. They keep hearing that old cold. It's not a big deal for young people. So all these things add up that people just become a little cavalier about this and don't worry about it. And it's true that the illness isn't this bad in especially in children, but they still can spread it to other people and they still can get very, very sick. You just you just don't know if you're going to be the unlucky one.

RB: What do you think this means for fully reopening schools in September?

ANDRE PICARD: Well, it's a challenge, right? I think it's the number one challenge we have in society today is how do we figure out that our kids can get an education and just as importantly, that they can have a childhood. We can't just lock them up forever. I'm not sure that we can just say we have to wait until there's a vaccine. As I said at the outset, that could be years. We need children in schools and in day-care if we want a functioning economy, especially if we want women working. We know women have really been harmed by this pandemic because they have this triple burden of child care and work and figuring out the family and home schooling. All this stuff falls on their shoulders. So there's a lot of economic reason to get kids back to school. There's a lot of social, mental, physical health reasons to do it. So I think we really have to figure out how to do it as safely as possible.

RB: How do you do that? I mean, how do you weigh the risks against the benefits?

ANDRE PICARD: Well, I think we can look, the advantage we have is we're a little late to the party in Canada so we can take lessons from the rest of the world. And many countries in Europe have done this successfully. They've got kids back to school. But it comes down to the number one thing is the less virus there is circulating in society, the safer we all are and especially kids in school. So that's the number one, is to keep the case down, count down and then there will be spread. Secondary to that, we have to practice physical distancing in schools. We have to figure out how not to cram 30 or 40 kids to a classroom, maybe make it 10 or 15. So we have to in many ways rethink how we educate kids and we can't forget when we're doing that equation to take the work of parents into account.

RB: Your colleagues at the Globe were reporting that Alberta will reopen schools full time. Do you think that other provinces will follow suit?

ANDRE PICARD: I think they're, the schools, my position all along is that we have to get schools open and we just have to figure out how to do it. So we have to stop discussing are we going to do it? Let's figure out how to do it safely. So is there going to be a mix of remote learning and in school learning? Is it going to be five days a week for everyone? And if so, probably we need to get kids to schools, put them in community centres. I saw in some European countries, they're doing classes in soccer stadiums. So anywhere to to ensure that the physical distancing can be respected, that teachers can be protected because kids can infect their teachers. All these things have to be taken into account. And I think we need to use a lot more imagination rather than just we either have to do it, it's always been done or not do it. There's a lot of ground in between here to do this thoughtfully and safely.

RB: Andre, always good to talk to you. Thanks so much.

ANDRE PICARD: Thanks, Robyn.

RB: That's Andre Picard. He's the health columnist for the Globe and Mail newspaper.

Uncover: Sharmini – Episode 6

RB: I am Robyn Bresnahan and you’re listening to The Current. And this summer, we're bringing you some of the best of CBC Podcasts. Today, we're going to continue with Uncover: Sharmini. On June 12th, 1999, 15-year-old Sharmini Anandavel left her family's Toronto apartment around 9:00 a.m. and she never returned. In today's episode, host Michelle Shephard introduces us to Sharmini's family. Here is Episode 6 of Uncover: Sharmini - "Searching for Justice.

SOUNDCLIP

[Crickets chirping and footsteps]

VOICE 1: On March 20th…

VOICE 2: Run!

[Heavy breathing and running]

VOICE 1: ..only one movie experience this year will make you afraid to breathe.

VOICE 3: You won’t survive.

VOICE 2: We have to try.

VOICE 1: A Quiet Place: Part II. In theatres March 20th. Tickets on sale now.

[Music]

ANNOUNCER: This is a CBC podcast.

[Singing]

[Speaking alternate language]

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: This is Sharmini.

These recordings were made more than two decades ago when she was a little girl. Songs and public speeches on cassette tapes. Her mother has played them over, and over, and over again in the 20 years since she was murdered.

[Sharmini speaking alternate language]

TRANSLATOR: Hello.

I am going to talk about mothers and fathers.

A mother gives milk, sings lullabies, and sacrifices her own eating time and sleeping time to take care of the child.

A mother is like a candle. When a mother sings lullabies, she gives her child her Tamil culture and language.

Give good advice and show us the path with love.

Who else, other than a mother, could be more proud of a child's accomplishments?

We are Tamil. We respect our mothers and fathers like God.

[Sharmini speaking alternate language]

[Music]

ATUSA BULBULIAN: As immigrants all our parents ever told us was, we left everything behind for you to have a good education here. And for someone to leave their country to come here for it, to have a better life and for that to happen, like...

[Sniffles]

ATUSA: It's probably like a parent's nightmare.

COLIN BRADDOCK: I mean, we talk about justice. Well this time, unfortunately, it was never served.

MATT CRONE: The interesting thing is, especially when you're dealing with a young person, is when you talk to the parents, they describe a person for you. And you talk to the teachers they describe a person for you. When you talk to the friends, they describe a person for you. And there are three different people. But this was odd. You always got the same person with this. This is just a nice kid, hardworking, lots of fun, bright, funny, enjoyed life.

KATHEES ANANDAVEL: I remember the last time I saw my sister. I was at home by myself with her and my parents weren't there. She said I'm leaving for the job, so I walked outside the door with her and she got in and she left.

[Music]

MICHELLE: I'm Michelle Shephard, and this is Uncover: Sharmini. Chapter Six: Searching for Justice.

[Music]

MICHELLE: I've never heard Sharmini's voice before. It's hard to imagine covering any tragedy today and not finding some video or audio of the person, something posted online.

We live public lives in a way we didn't 20 years ago. When I met Sharmini's brothers, they mentioned they had their sister's voice on these cassette tapes and they kindly offered to share them.

[Sharmini singing softly]

[Music]

MICHELLE: The lobby of the Lord Elgin Hotel in Ottawa is full of high back leather chairs, grand portraits and marble floors. There's a busy Starbucks at one end, and a brightly lit restaurant at the other.

It's not the perfect spot to set up for an interview. There's a hollow echo from the floors and you can't escape the music being piped in from hidden speakers.

But it's a central place that makes the most sense to meet Dinesh and Kathees.

Do you want me to get us some coffees or something?

DINESH ANANDAVEL: There's a Starbucks right there, I can--

MICHELLE: No, no. Let me get them. I'll be right back. What do you drink?

Over the years I had stayed in touch with Sharmini's dad. We would email each other once in awhile, and I still have some of our correspondence.

Here's one from 2005.

"Hi Ms. Michelle," he wrote. "She would have been 21 years old."

"Kathees is in Carleton University, doing 2nd year doing biochemistry; Dinesh is in graphic design. We never forget you. Say hi to your family and other staff. May god bless you and long life."

When I approached Sharmini's dad about the podcast, he gave us his blessing, which I'm grateful for. I asked if the family would take part to record an interview, to tell us about Sharmini and how her death impacted their lives, but he worried a sit-down interview was too difficult, and I get that.

[Music]

MICHELLE: But after a few months, I got a text from Dinesh. He and his brother had changed their minds.

DINESH: The only thing that I really wanted to say was positives that I took out of it. That there was a lot of people that helped us. The community came together, people came together, people tried to help, and I find that generally with when bad things happen, people get together to help. So-- which is really great.

MICHELLE: Both brothers are warm and gentle, like their parents. And very close. In fact, they married sisters. They live near each other, and they see their parents all the time.

KATHEES: Yeah. I mean, you know, and the other thing like having this conversation makes me want to like go back and look at that stuff.

Look at the pictures.

MICHELLE: The brothers tell me that they've never talked about Sharmini's death in this much detail before.

KATHEES: And one of the things I like-- I've had an always kind of struggled with things like having kids and telling them that I had a sister at one point, so that's been like...it's been weird.

MICHELLE: Kathees gave his daughter, "Sharmini" as her middle name, and his four years old son is starting to ask about the girl in family photos that are all over his grandparents' house.

DINESH: A lot of the behaviour, attitude I still remember.

MICHELLE: Dinesh tells me about what he remembers about Sharmini.

DINESH: And just there's a, like a strong attitude she has. When I say attitude, not in a negative thing, but positive one would say. That's what I remember.

MICHELLE: Kathees and Sharmini were closer, and he remembers the two of them ganging up on their older brother.

KATHEES: Actually, I was just telling my son a couple of weeks ago, I was like, "Oh your uncle's a bully!"

[Laughter]

KATHEES: He would, like, take the TV remote and he would just change the channel to whatever he wanted and so we would always, like, tag team against him. I don't know. I mean, like, we were young. She was young.

She was a good sister.

MICHELLE: Both brothers have difficulty recalling that time in their lives. Dinesh was 17 when his sister disappeared.

DINESH: My biggest problem is that-- a lot of the memories. I have no idea on the details, and a lot of the things I've forgotten or lost somewhere.

MICHELLE: Kathees was even younger; 13 when he lost Sharmini. Sitting across from him now, I can still see some of that little boy. The one who I watched sitting so quietly beside his sobbing mother.

KATHEES: Yeah, definitely the same for me. It's like a complete block. I don't remember almost anything from that time. I have a couple of random, very specific memories.

MICHELLE: What, what are those that you do remember?

KATHEES: Well, I mean, I remember the last time I saw my sister. I was at home by myself with her. She said, "I'm leaving for the job”, so I walked outside the door with her.

She went to the elevators pressed the button. I stayed there talking to her, and then she told me like, reminded me to do the laundry. And I just said, like jokingly as I always do, I just say, "No, I'm not going to do it."

And then she kind of, I don't know what she said, but then she got in and she left. So, I remember that. I remember like, you know, during the time that she was missing like, every time we'd be driving somewhere, or I'd be sitting in the car, I would look outside and I'd always I imagine...

Oh, you know, what if she was, like, she was like right there, driving down the highway and you'd look outside like, oh, you know. What if she was right there and it was over, you know, that would happen over and over again. And then the worst one was when I went to school...like, I think I didn't go to school for a while.

MICHELLE: Eventually Kathees did have to go back.

KATHEES: So, at that time there was a lot of people who were collecting Pokémon cards and that was like the big thing at the time, so I had Pokémon cards. And on the first day back, like, my class had put together this binder of Pokémon cards. Yeah, that they had like all put together. And so, it was-- it was super nice. Coming home after school, that was the day that we found out for sure. That you know, she was killed, or that they had found her...and I remember just going in and, in the hallway, there was like lots of shoes.

And I remember walking in, the whole house was filled with people...

MICHELLE: It's hard not to cry as he tells this story. Such a sweet gift from his class; a moment to be happy after four months of agony.

You can picture him, hugging that binder as he comes home to show his parents, only to see a hallway full of shoes and find out that his sister's remains have been found.

KATHEES: You know, the reason she wanted to get a job is because she wanted money because we weren't well off. It also makes me think, like, well, if you were more well-off maybe you wouldn't have wanted to go get the job. And then this wouldn't have happened.

MICHELLE: And on the day that she went missing you believed that it was-- the job she was going to have been arranged by Tippett.

KATHEES: Yeah, 100%.

MICHELLE: Kathees says he was with Sharmini when Tippett would offer her a job.

KATHEES: I was so close to my sister and I knew-- I knew when she left. I knew why she was leaving. I was there with her when we used to go to, like, the swimming pool with this guy. You know, I was there. It was me and her talking to him so, I was part of those conversations of him telling her he's going to get her a job. So, like I knew exactly where she was leaving and knew exactly who she went with so that nothing else was really even remotely a question in my mind.

MICHELLE: He denies now that he ever took you guys swimming.

KATHEES: I mean, yeah. Yeah.

MICHELLE: But you were there. So, he did...

KATHEES: Yes. Totally. Yeah. 100%. I mean, I can't tell you how many times we went with him, but we definitely went. Several, several times we were with him, just the two of us and him alone.

MICHELLE: Kathees also remembers thinking something else about Tippett.

KATHEES: I guess I was young, and I believed that he was a cop, like, you know, and I think he showed us a badge at one point.

MICHELLE: This. This is the moment when the weight of the case against Tippett really hits me. Sharmini's brother was barely a teenager when she was killed, but there is no doubt in his mind that the job his sister was going to was arranged by Tippett. Tippett has always denied giving Sharmini that job. He denied it 20 years ago, and he denies it today. All he did, he told me in our 1999 interview, was to give her an application for a job at the local swimming pool.

But he never denied knowing the kids in the building, or the fact that he took Sharmini and her brother swimming. So why is he denying it now? Kathees remembers it. He was there. And I wrote about it in that article, because Tippett told me he did. Talking to her brothers about Tippett and how he led the kids in the building to believe he was a cop, reminds me of the application police found in Sharmini's bedroom, the one for the fictitious Metro Search Unit.

MATT: One of the things that we had; we had a job application that was in her possession that we believe Stanley gave her.

MICHELLE: I go back to the interviews I've had with Matt Crone, one of the lead detectives in Sharmini's case.

MATT: We can't directly connect that to him, but it was...if you looked at the writing on it and, you know, the spelling mistakes and, you know, it looked like a made up thing.

MICHELLE: Yeah, and it looked like something that someone in grade 4 had made.

[Music]

MICHELLE: There was something else Matt told us. That, at the time should have seemed more significant, but we got caught up with all the other details.

MATT: So, we gave it to the CFS...

MICHELLE: That's the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

MATT: ..and more or less said, "We don't know what we're looking for on this but here are the circumstances. Just whatever you can do, whether it's the type of paper, the type of ink, the font, whatever information that you can develop from this", and they couldn't do a lot for it. And unfortunately, what happened was they stored that and its heat-- that heat active paper, activated paper.

MICHELLE: I don't know what that is.

MATT: It's they used to use it on printers where the keys were actually heated and when they strike, it's the heat of the key that turns the paper dark. So, they stored that in a warm place and the whole thing turned black. So unfortunately, we lost all of that evidence.

[Music]

MICHELLE: Heat activated paper, or thermal paper. Historically, getting fingerprints from this type paper was difficult because of its unique chemical makeup. But, here's the sad part; in recent years, new methods have been developed which now make it possible to lift fingerprints off that type of paper. So, if the application had been preserved properly, maybe, just maybe, something could have been found.

I phoned Matt again.

That must have been obviously a mistake in how they stored it. They must have known.

MATT: Yes...that's the polite answer; yes, that would be a mistake.

MICHELLE: I reached out to the Centre of Forensic Sciences, to see if they would talk about this...

..They wouldn't.

[Music]

[Crickets chirping and footsteps]

VOICE 1: On March 20th…

VOICE 2: Run!

[Heavy breathing and running]

VOICE 1: ..only one movie experience this year will make you afraid to breathe.

VOICE 3: You won’t survive.

VOICE 2: We have to try.

VOICE 1: A Quiet Place: Part II. In theatres March 20th. Tickets on sale now.

[Music]

STACY GALLANT: Okay. My name is Stacy Gallant. I'm a detective sergeant with the Toronto Police Service.

MICHELLE: Stacey Gallant is the detective sergeant in charge of Cold Cases for the Toronto Police.

STACY: We have over 650 current cold cases in Toronto.

MICHELLE: Sharmini's is one of them. She's listed as Homicide Number 36, for the year 1999.

STACY: We don't reinvestigate cases in the cold case office. Homicides are investigated by top level investigators from start to finish. By the time it becomes a cold case that really means that everything that could have been done during the case has been done and the investigation has no more leads to follow and there's nothing left that the original investigators can do.

MICHELLE: Gallant confirms to producer Kathleen Goldhar something Matt had mentioned. That after the original 1999 investigation, the cold case squad took another look into Sharmini's murder.

KATHLEEN: We're talking about the reinvestigation in 2011. What prompted it?

[Pause]

STACY: Um, I would say...new information that came in.

KATHLEEN: Can you tell me what that is?

STACY: No. Unfortunately, between the two investigations that happened, they were unable to bring it to the point where any anyone could be arrested, or a prosecution could be mounted.

MICHELLE: Although Gallant won't talk about the new information which prompted this second investigation, we know it coincided with Tippett's dangerous offender hearing.

So, you have somebody in a homicide who's a person of interest. They don't get convicted for this crime. They go on and commit a whole bunch of other crimes that have very similar um, similar details to the one you're looking at. Can that be used to put a case forward to the Crown saying...

STACY: Similar fact evidence can be used in certain circumstances, but I don't think that in and of itself is enough to mount a prosecution against someone that's going to lead to a conviction in court.

MICHELLE: But if you were so close, with the original homicide investigation, you had so much circumstantial evidence, and now you have this, could it be enough to hypothetically tip it over?

STACY: That's not my call. That's up to the Crown's office. That's up to, you know, a judge to decide, you know if-- I think you need more than circumstantial evidence, you need more than similar fact evidence. You know, without some direct evidence it's very, very difficult to convict someone of a murder.

[Music]

[Car door slams]

MICHELLE: So, how have you been?

PAUL CULVER: Good.

MICHELLE: It's been a long time.

PAUL: Well, I retired ten years ago but I didn't really retire...

MICHELLE: Paul Culver spent many years, decades actually, prosecuting some of Canada's most infamous murder cases.

PAUL: I was employed as a Crown attorney in Toronto for 35 years, and over the course of that time I did I think 38 murder trials and everything else related to criminal law and oversaw an office of 105 assistant Crowns.

MICHELLE: We know police believe it was Tippett who killed Sharmini. But it's the Crown Attorney, Canada's prosecutor, who advises police on whether there's enough evidence to bring someone to trial. And then of course, it's up to a judge or a jury to decide if he's guilty.

PAUL: I think I told you, I had no personal involvement in this case.

MICHELLE: I walk Paul through Sharmini's case. At the time what we knew was that Sharmini disappeared. She was on her way to a job. What we know from the witnesses we've tracked down, and I describe Detective Matt Crone's theory. And the theory was whoever had offered her this job, who they believed was Stanley Tippett, had offered this as some sort of ruse...

And why Matt thinks Tippett is the one who killed her.

If you were the crown at the time, what would you say you needed that they didn't have, or having described that, do you think, I might've risked it. I might have, I might have gone for it.

PAUL: Well, the test for laying a charge is reasonable prospect of conviction. The test for finding someone guilty is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and somewhere in between, you have to weigh what are the consequences of laying the charge and taking it to the trial. So, without knowing all the details, there must have been something here that was missing.

MICHELLE: Tippett could account for his whereabouts for most of the day Sharmini disappeared, except for about two hours when he said his car overheated, and he took a break cutting lawns to let it cool.

I think the big holes in the case were that nobody saw them together that day. No one could actually place them together. And then the lack of forensic evidence, because her remains were found four months later. It was a really hot summer. It was near a coyote's den. So, there's very little that was left. Would that, those two factors alone be enough to say there's no reasonable prospect of conviction?

PAUL: They could be. Circumstantial cases are like putting a puzzle together. You have to get all the pieces and if the part in the middle is missing, then that can-- that is a problem with your proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So, in this case, I would think that there was a missing link that just made the police and the Crown at that time not want to proceed.

[Music]

MICHELLE: Beyond the possible lack of evidence, Matt Crone thinks there might be another reason why the crown was apprehensive to lay charges in 1999...

MATT: Guy Paul Morin.

[Music]

MICHELLE: Guy Paul Morin. In 1985, he was charged with the brutal killing of nine-year-old Christine Jessop. He was portrayed as her "creepy neighbour," and eventually convicted of first-degree murder. It would take 10 years before he was exonerated.

NEWSCASTER 1: Guy Paul Morin was grinning from ear to ear, celebrating his acquittal. Morin has always insisted he did not kill nine-year-old Christine Jessop, and this morning, the courts agreed with him.

MICHELLE: A public inquiry into his wrongful conviction condemned the officers and prosecutors for their "tunnel vision" and single-minded belief that Guy Paul Morin was the killer.

[Music]

MICHELLE: Christine Jessop's actual killer has never been found.

[Music]

MATT: I came onto this case fresh off of leaving the Christine Jessop re-investigation. So, all the sore points that we kind of got stuck with from Christine Jessop and Guy Paul Morin were still very fresh. So, quite frequently when we started the investigation, you know, we'd asked the team, like, is there any other explanation? Are there any other suspects? Should we be looking at an alternative theory? Should we be thinking of something else? And the responses I get were like blank looks going "What, are you stupid?"

And it was-- it was, kind of overwhelmingly, all roads lead back to Stan.

MICHELLE: So, you go through all this and now you have a case where you're worried you have perhaps the same tunnel vision and is Stanley Tippett the Guy Paul Morin. How does that impact you, or how did it impact you at the time?

MATT: Well, we knew that if we were going to put ourselves into a position where we could prosecute Stanley Tippett for this, that the evidence we had to have had to be that good, that compelling. The problems we had with that was that there was no physical evidence. It just wasn't there.

MICHELLE: You just think the threshold has been placed way too high because of that?

MATT: I think sometimes there are triable cases and I think that part of the issue is the public has a right to hear some of these cases and I understand the need to avoid wrongfully convicting people. And you know, people say, like, one of the things you used to fear when you were a cop, number one is charging the wrong person.

MICHELLE: Police did lack forensic evidence, and Sharmini told different people different things about the job she was going to on the day she disappeared. Those conflicting stories could be problematic for the Crown during a trial. And we don't know of anybody who said they saw Sharmini and Tippett together on the day she disappeared. But still, even with these holes, the investigating officers felt they had a strong enough case and brought an extensive file to prosecutors. They decided the case wasn't winnable, and whether or not Guy Paul Morin influenced that decision, we don't know. No charges were ever laid. We know that using similar fact evidence, the details from crimes that Tippett committed after Sharmini was killed, is tricky. And former Crown Attorney Paul Culver also noted that it's just generally more difficult to prosecute a cold case. Witnesses may have died, or can't be found, or could forget details.

PAUL: You have to also take into account what the practical effect would be if this person is declared a dangerous offender. If you're a dangerous offender, there's potential for you never getting out of prison. So, you'd also have to look at, you know, how much evidence still remain from earlier on what the practical effect would be of prosecuting this person.

MICHELLE: We asked the current chief crown attorney to talk us about Sharmini's case, but he declined our request.

[Music]

MICHELLE: If Stanley Tippett did kill Sharmini, does it matter if he's charged? He's off the streets, declared a dangerous offender, so there's a good chance he'll never get out of prison, never be granted parole.

KATHEES: To me, I actually--I really don't care.

MICHELLE: Sharmini's brothers are among those who believe Tippett was the killer. This is Kathees.

KATHEES: I don't care whether he gets charged, specifically, for my sister. I'm quite happy knowing he's in jail. If like, he was getting out tomorrow and this would make a difference to put him in jail, that I care more about. And I wish that he was put in jail a lot sooner because he got caught again several times let go and caught again. And so, if he could have been put in jail right away. Like, you know, that would have been what I would have wanted but today, I don't really care.

MICHELLE: Sharmini's older brother Dinesh, feels the same.

DINESH: About him being in jail or not or not? For this case? It doesn't really bother me at all. But if he got out, it would bother me a lot more. At least for any other cases as long as it is-- as long as he is not out there taking a chance on somebody else.

MICHELLE: Everyone else we talked to wanted Sharmini's killer to be held responsible in a court of law.

COLIN: To me, justice was never served for her. Honestly. That's always how I felt. This is nothing against the police or anything like that. I'm not saying they didn't do their job. I'm just saying, truthfully, it was never served.

ABI: I personally think it's important that regardless of whether he's already in or not, if there is enough to prove that he was part of this, he has to be made to pay the price.

ATUSA: Just to know that there is closure in that case. It solidifies it, and I feel like that, as a parent, I would want. I would demand that.

JODY WHITE: Matters to me. Matters to all of us. I think to you, too. I want him to be accountable. I think that when we know what happened, it helps us to move on and if we don't know what has happened, then we're stuck. And I feel stuck. And I think many of us are.

[Music]

MICHELLE: Matt Crone, who tried for so many years to build a case against Tippett, has also had a hard time letting go.

What would that-- what would that mean to you if for some reason he now gets put on trial?

MATT: When I retired, I found myself apologizing to the Anandavel family that we never we never solved this. We never resolved this issue for them. I think they deserve resolution for this which they haven't had, which nobody's given them. So that would probably mean more to me than any anything more you could do to Stanley Tippett.

[Music]

[Sharmini speaking alternate language]

[Music]

MICHELLE: We called this podcast "Sharmini," because we wanted to honour her memory. I know so much more about her today. Victims tend to be lionized in public, no matter their background. But everyone, everyone we talked to had only beautiful memories of Sharmini.

By all accounts, she really was a sweet, smart, kid. Months before we started writing this podcast, I met with Sharmini's father in Ottawa. I couldn't believe how little he had changed. He was as warm and open as he was two decades ago. I reminded him about that picture of Sharmini, the one he gave me. The one of her in the gold sari, which I kept at my desk. And I told him about Tippett, and how the article I wrote in 1999 had stuck with me. It was just such an unfinished story. He responded with his thoughts on reincarnation; that justice doesn't always come right away. I'm really happy to see that he's at peace. As much as you can be when you lose a child. I think, like Matt Crone, I just wanted to give Sharmini's family some sort of ending to this horrible chapter in their lives. Maybe...there isn't one.

[Sharmini singing]

[Music]

RB: Well, that was Episode 6 of the CBC Podcast, Uncover: Sharmini hosted by Michelle Shephard. You can tune in tomorrow for the final segment of the story. Well, that is our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for Q Today. Tom Power speaks to Emma Donoghue about her latest novel, The Pull of Our Stars. It's set in 1918 Ireland and follows three health care workers at the height of a pandemic. Sound familiar? That conversation coming up after the CBC News. And you can always download the CBC Listen app to catch up on anything that you missed or you want to hear again from The Current and other CBC programs. I'm Robyn Bresnahan. Thanks very much for your company today. You have been listening to The Current.

[Music: theme]

The Current Transcript for July 21, 2020

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

Women form 'Wall of Moms' to protect protesters after Trump sends troops into Portland

How robots can help in post-COVID times

Uncover: Sharmini – Episode 6

July 21, 2020 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode