Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Incident 1 Video Tape and Q/A

The Hamiltonian has followed up with the City with a number of questions related to the video recording of the incident that happened between Joey Coleman and Clr. Ferguson. The following are the questions we submitted. It seems that the reply received is not aligned to the questions per sei. However, we have posted what we sent and what was received:

Questions asked by The Hamiltonian of the City:

The questions below are related to the video footage that exists and/or existed that captured the interactions between Clr. Ferguson and Joey Coleman, on the day/evening that the altercation between the two in which Clr. Ferguson pushed Mr. Coleman, occurred:

1. Can you describe for us the retention schedule for video footage, as it pertains to the area and surrounding areas in which this altercation occurred. In other words, how long is video footage ordinarily kept? What happens to video footage that falls outside of that retention period. Is it archived somewhere else? Is it irrecoverably deleted? Does something else happen to it? If so, what?

2. At a point in time, the aforementioned video footage became the subject of concern. When and how did you first learn that the footage was of special interest? Who first directed you to treat it as such?

3. Who had access to the video and who viewed it, to date?

4. At a point in time, the video of that day appears to have been edited. In that context, it appears that the video has been reduced to being a discrete clip of a larger amount of footage.

4a) is it correct that the video footage is an extract of a larger degree of footage that would have existed?
4b) if so, who made the decision to edit down the video, and what parameters or criteria was used to arrive at the extract that survived?
4c) in terms of the editing that was done, was it confined to simply extracting a piece of video from the whole footage, or, in addition, was there pieces of the video that was edited within the extracted portion that survives. In other words, within the piece of video that has been published, were any pieces removed, added, moved or otherwise altered from the original footage?
4d) In examining the video for the purposes of executing the aforementioned editing that occurred, the portion that has not been made available must have been viewed. For any other portions of that whole footage, was there any footage that showed any further altercations between Clr. Ferguson and Mr. Coleman. In particular, was there any other footage that would have showed an additional instance or instances, where Clr., Ferguson layed a hand(.s)on Mr. Coleman?

5. To the city’s belief, we have been told that the remaining footage of that day no longer exists. Can you confirm that it no longer exists and is completely unrecoverable?

6.Is there anything else that you believe should be known about the aforementioned matter, as it pertains to the video footage?

The City's reply:

In searching the City’s computers/hard drive on November 27th, 2015, at the request of the City manager’s office, and in light of the attention around the incident 3 files were found.  

1.       Incident1.n3r    - this is a copy of the video file from the CCTV camera system. It was created at 9:34 am Feb 28, 2014 following direction to retain the file.
2.       ND_viewer.exe – this is a simple application used to view the video file. It was placed on this security computer the afternoon before the .n3r file.
3.       Incident1.mp4  - this is an mp4 extract of the Incident1.n3r file. It was created at 3:05 pm March 17, 2014. When played, it appears to be identical to the .n3r file, but of slightly poorer quality.

4.       The copy Legal Services was provided by Facilities staff is a copy of the attached original made via a cellphone camera, that video copy was then forwarded to our FOI office from Legal Services on March 28, 2014.  

I have attached the mp4 file to this email for you to view, (click here to see it) as you can see it is the exact same video as the one released by FOI staff.

3 Staff viewed the original video when it was order retained.
·         2 Security guards
·         1 Supervisor, Facility Services

Rom D’Angelo (Director responsible for facility services) has told the City Manager, that these staff are prepared to sign an affidavit recalling to the best of their knowledge the incident and steps taken and to state they stopped the video where they did as that was the end of the physical incident as they viewed the video.

We did an IT sweep for anything else. All of the remaining possible sources were checked.  There is no evidence of a saved video anywhere beyond what was found. This isn’t surprising as all of these security video camera systems store a minimal amount of video on-line.  Any videos to be saved must be off-loaded (as was done with the video extraction that occurred here).

So, I believe these are the only video files in existence.

As I have said, the city does not have a video retention policy or overall corporate security protocol.  This will be completed as per Council’s direction immediately.  

Thank you,

Mike Kirkopoulos B.Sc., M.A.
Director, Corporate Communications & Intergovernmental Affairs
City of Hamilton 


  1. Wow. This story gets more intriguing. As I watched the vdeo, it occurred to me that Coleman could not have possibly have known that there was a sensitive conversation going on, in the span of such short time. For all he knew, they could have been talking about going for coffee, the results of a sports event etc. Regardless, the shove was grossly inappropriate.

    I reaf Ferguson's comments in the Spec today about LRT. I don't knoiw if that was contrived to get more positive news coverage or whether it was just the way it happened. But I think this video incident will dog and overshadow Fergusoon for as long as he decides he is entitled to stay. It also smears the Mayor, every other councillor and the city. He needs to step down.

    1. I almost laughed when I read Ferguson's comments on LRT. This early in, it's a very throw away comment. It's like saying- be careful cause it might snow this winter.


Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints, spirited discussion and even pointed comments are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will simply not be authorized to appear. This blog also reserves the right to exclude comments that are off topic or are otherwise unprofessional. This blog does not assume any liability whatsoever for comments posted. People posting comments or providing information on interviews, do so at their own risk.

Comments posted on this blog, may be used as excerpts in whole or in part, in other media sources .
This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for.

Views expressed by commentators or in articles that appear here, cannot be assumed to be espoused by The Hamiltonian staff or its publisher.