Thank you.
Originally, I had questions that I wanted to ask later, but since some of my concerns have already been raised and discussed here, I have decided to ask some of these questions.
One thing that I've been struggling with so far is how we delineate grounds to believe and grounds to suspect. How do we distinguish where it would begin and where it would stop? That has been my struggle all this time.
Sergeant Gilkes, I'm grateful that you used concrete examples. That is what I need because I'm a concrete sequential learner. I need stories, facts and examples to help me understand.
Early on you gave a very good example about somebody discovering that his bicycle had been stolen. You said all the descriptions were pointing to one person, and there were reasonable grounds to suspect and have the guy investigated.
Let me give you one real case in Richmond, which happened many years ago, to see how the core suspect would fit into your description or classification.
There is a resident in my riding, in my neighbourhood, actually. He was a gardener. He spent lots of time gardening. He had a beautiful garden. One day, he discovered that his garden had been destroyed, so he made a report to the police. He said, “It is likely to be my neighbour, for the reason that he said he didn't like my garden. He hates me for gardening. I know this because each time I'm gardening, he comes to the fence and yells at me.”
He said that he didn't understand what the neighbour was talking about, but when he stopped, rose and went back to his house, the neighbour would be quiet. Not only that, he said that he received phone calls in the middle of the night. When he would pick up, somebody would yell in a very loud voice, in a different language that he didn't understand. Then he would hang up.
In that kind of situation, how would you classify the neighbour living next door? Is there reasonable grounds to suspect or reasonable grounds to believe?