WOODSTOCK -- "An Amber Alert would not have made any difference because it did not meet the criteria."
-- Police Chief Ron Fraser
---
How is Oxford Community Police Chief Ron Fraser so sure an Amber Alert would not have helped in the early search of Tori Stafford?
In the name of safety for the rest of Ontario's children in the future should we take his word for it?
After all as of deadline although two people are in custody and police are calling it murder, her body had not been found, nor her murder scene, the time or date of death have not been determined and no clear motive has been suggested.
And yet Woodstock police already know 100% an Amber Alert would not have made any difference whatsoever in the abduction of Tori Stafford. How do they know? That eight-year-old Stafford's disappearance did not fit somebody's interpretation of a rigid rule book seems to be something Woodstock police are clinging to.
In fact it was 10 days into the bizarre disappearance of Tori before Chief Fraser ever addressed the media -- and that was to announce his detectives were no longer leading the investigation and that the OPP was now at the helm.
Instead of being out front and leading from the beginning he had Oxford Community Police Const. Laurie-Anne Maitland handling the dozens of media who had descended on the small city of 36,000.
On the questions about the Amber Alert decision, Maitland told Canadian Press ron April 14 it's easy to play "Monday-morning quarterback" and that police acted "just as quickly as we possibly could."
Affable Maitland also told media people "I believe she is alive and I know there are people who share that belief."
It was certainly the kind of thing everybody wanted to hear but what it was based on, we are not sure.
There were a lot of other unusual comments and developments in the six weeks since Tori vanished.
When you consider that there was that strange video showing the abduction, candlelight vigils, walks, family news conferences, wild limousine rides to follow potential leads, accusations of drug abuse, drug plots, family feuds and accusations, it has been a tragic circus here.
What there wasn't though was an Amber Alert sent out in the early hours of the disappearance -- something that needs to be done quickly before an abductor gets away. The chief says: "We notified the local media as fast as we could" -- but is that good enough?
Let's review the day of Wednesday, April 8. Video evidence shows Tori was abducted at about 3:25 p.m., near her school and was reported missing to Woodstock police at 6 p.m.
It wasn't until 3 a.m. Thursday that release went out to local media and it was circulated wider at 6 a.m. This is between 12 and 15 hours after she disappeared and nine and 12 hours after she was reported missing. Throw in the fact that many people are still asleep at 3 and 6 a.m. and it also makes the timing of this release problematic.
Certainly an Amber Alert at 6 p.m. on April 8 would have at least given the community here and in surrounding areas an opportunity to look out for her. There could have been searches all night here, on the highways and in neighbouring communities.
That is, after all, what the Amber Alert is for.
It's not personal against the chief who does seem like a caring man but my gut feeling still remains that an inquiry needs to be called to do a post mortem on all of these issues -- the first order of business being what went on at 6 p.m. and 3 a.m. and why was her disappearance silent for those nine crucial hours?
Chief Fraser keeps talking about criteria but it must be pointed out that the whole point of creating the immediate Amber Alert system is to be able to cut through red tape and use media to instantly get information out about an abducted child.
Still here are the criteria: A law enforcement agency confirms a child under 18 years of age has been abducted; a law enforcement agency believes the circumstances surrounding the abduction indicate that the child is in danger of serious bodily harm or death, and there is enough descriptive information about the child, abductor, and/or suspect's vehicle to believe an immediate broadcast alert will help in locating the child.
True, they had no confirmation of abduction, indication of danger, description of abductor or a vehicle. But they did have a missing eight-year-old girl, which should be good enough.
If they need clarity, the provincial legislature should immediately add a fourth criteria to an Amber Alert and that is if a child under the age of 12 has not returned home and there is a reasonable belief she is legitimately missing, put out the alert.
Why take a chance?
You read the current criteria and it almost seems that children are exempt from the protection the alert is supposed to provide. The under-18 guideline is ridiculous since a missing 14, 15, 16 or 17 year old kid and those 11-years-old and under are so much different.
"I wonder if it was the police chief's daughter would they have waited that long before issuing an Amber Alert?" wrote resident Jim O'Hara to the Woodstock Sentinal-Review after Tori disappeared.
Fair or not, we will never know if a 6 p.m., April 8 Amber Alert would have made a difference.
JOE.WARMINGTON@SUNMEDIA.CA
