Canadian True Crime - Case Updates & Feedback: 2021 [1]

Episode Date: July 21, 2021

We're discussing cases covered in the past year - going through updates, clarifying some things, and chatting about your feedback.Order of cases discussed in this episode Chapais Fire TragedyMurder of Robin Greene Mayerthorpe TragedyStorming the Capital (1966 Parliamentary Bombing)Johnson-Bentley Family MurdersMurder of Brayton BullockLush & Whiteway FamiliesMadison Scott - Tenth anniversary message from her parents.Mad Trapper of Rat RiverMurder of Laura Letts  Saskatoon Freezing DeathsRenfrew County MurdersYour rights as a VICTIM:Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (Bill C-32)Your rights as a person ACCUSED, DETAINED or CONVICTED:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - see "Legal Rights" section-----------------------------------------------------Thanks for supporting our sponsors!See the special offer codes here Access the ad-free extended versionOn Patreon or Supercast. Learn more-----------------------------------------------------Podcast RecommendationFool Me Twice - Season 2Credits: Research: Enya BestAudio editing and production: We Talk of DreamsMusic: Kai Engel - Mare Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hi everyone. As you know, I am still on a break until September 1st, which is when the show is back with the next regular episode. We'll be undergoing some more changes too with a new theme song that I promise will not make your car stereoes rattle and more that I'll fill you in about in the first episode back. But for now, it is the annual case updates and feedback episodes. Now, if you're a supporter on Patreon or Supercast and you're looking for behind-the-scenes info, make sure that you are listening to the ad-free version right now because it is an extended version. So for today's case updates and feedback episode, part one, I'll be giving you relevant updates on the cases covered by the podcast in the past year. Some of the episodes have stirred up some controversy,

so we'll be discussing the feedback you sent in and I'll be sharing some of my own thoughts and opinions. as well as other things I learned after the episodes had aired. So I'll start from the most recent case and work my way back. So that means we're starting with episode 93, the Chapay fire tragedy. This episode was quite close to my heart and I came across the case only recently and knew straight away that shared community trauma was what I wanted to end the season with because it is so applicable to what we're all going through with COVID today. And I heard back from a lot of you that you did appreciate the message.

So for that, I am so thankful. Thank you as always for reaching out with your kind words. Even though I can't reply to everything, I do read everything and I really appreciate your messages. Episodes 91 to 92, The Murder of Robin Green. This was the Winnipeg case of an Indigenous man who was plied with alcohol by Sydney Tier Hughes and then murdered and dismembered in the most horrific of ways in a low-rent hotel. And then months later, a wannabe true crime writer turned podcaster saw an opportunity and involved himself into the situation. This was definitely a case that was more than met the eye

for me. Back when I first started listening to True Crime Podcasts, I used to listen to True Murder with Dan Zupansky. It was one of the originals, as I said, and he interviews True Crime authors about books that they've written. And since he always said in his intro that he was a true crime author, I knew that he had written at least one true crime book. I just didn't know much about it. And Dan is right. For how awful this case is, it really isn't a very well-known case here in Canada. So when I found out that the book he wrote was about a Canadian crime, I kind of put it on my list to check out. So originally I went about writing the episode and thinking that I would chat with Dan afterwards as I do sometimes with journalists who have delved deep into a case. But then once I was deep

into the weeds of the case, I realized that Dan wasn't just an outsider who wrote a book on the case. He was actually involved in it and some of his actions were what some people have considered to be towing the line of ethics. And for that reason, I got some feedback that I shouldn't have interviewed him at the end, that Dan took the case to a sensationalistic place with very little consideration or discussion of Robin as a human. And some of you thought that having Dan on the show was disrespectful towards Robin Green's family, and I should have just told the story without his input. Now, I definitely think that this is valid feedback for sure, but I do have a counter-response.

And this is not a black and white issue with a right or wrong answer. I think that if you take a bird's eye view of this particular case, what it really highlighted was the difference in perspective between what I'll call old school true crime, which was all about sensationalism, and modern true crime, which tends to incorporate best practices established for presenting cases responsibly. And you'll likely know exactly what I mean when I talk

about old school true crime, because the key messages have always been aligned with shocking, sensational, creepy, horror, gore, disturbing, serial killer. And it's with this kind of perspective that leads content creators to do things like put serial killers on merchandise. It's obviously to appeal to people who are into the shock and the darkness and the taboo of crime stories. people who don't consider themselves to be normies, for what of a better word. But I guess the problem is that true crime is very much mainstream now. The normies are listening, and responsible creators really do need to think about moving past these old school perspectives and stereotypes, because it is quite disrespectful to victims

and their families. And we've been seeing this slide over to more nuanced and empathetic coverage that focuses less on the sensationalism and the shocking details and more on the human angles. And you kind of saw that come into play on those Robin Green episodes. As the only person who wrote a book on the case, Dan Zippansky did have some control over the story for years and years, and he definitely came at it from that old school true crime angle that focused on sensationalism of the case, both in the excess of the gory details given, but also in the Hollywood angle with a necklace and how that all kind of tied in. And if you thought what you

heard on my two episodes was sensationalistic, you should have seen the details that we left out. I wanted to focus more on the humanity angle, so instead of going into all the revolting details of what Sydney said he did to Robin Green, I chose to focus on the clinical details contained in the autopsy report, the facts. Without any of those shocking descriptors, of the state of Robbins remains after Sydney Tier Hughes was finished. So I do understand that some people think Dan shouldn't have been interviewed at the end of the episode. But my goal here was to lay everything bare so you could make up your own mind about the case,

how it developed with Dan Zupanski's involvement and the outcome and the aftermath. And he did have some good points to make, especially about the lack of coverage on the case until the movie necklace angle came to light. And his theory was that it was because both men were indigenous. And I do think that this is a valid theory. In any event, even with the controversy, I'm happy to see that it sparked another conversation about the ethics of true crime

and how the genre has evolved in recent years. Episodes 88 to 90, the Mayer Thorpe Tragedy. This was the story of James. James Roscoe, the criminal who murdered four RCMP officers before turning the gun on himself. And it also included the story of how the RCMP dealt with the aftermath in the face of some very public questions. Now, as you'll remember, two guys in their 20s, Sean Hennessy and Dennis Cheeseman, gave Roscoe a ride back to his farm and then lied about it. And so they were targeted by an expensive Mr. Big Sting. It was a complex, nuanced story full of shades of

grey, which might be why hardly anyone else has covered it in depth. And for me, I feel like it would have been irresponsible if I didn't look closer at those shades of grey. There was a lot of great discussions in the comments. Many of you thought that the RCMP's pursuit of Sean and Dennis was disproportionate to the crime they committed, which was the crime of not warning the RCMP that they had dropped Roscoe back at his property. But others maintained that if the men had refused to drive him back to his compound, perhaps the massacre might not have happened in the first place, so they deserved everything they got. Again, we have to stop thinking about this as a black and white issue. Sean and Dennis had very valid reasons to be scared, reasons to want to do

what Roscoe said to get him off their case. And it doesn't have to be either they are completely innocent or first-degree murder long jail sentence. I believe that they realize their mistake, boy, do they. And I hope that they've been able to get back to some sense of normalcy in their lives. I do believe that they have paid more than the price they deserve to pay for the crime they committed. Now, strangely enough, the thing that seemed to stir up the most controversy was the song that I chose to play at the end, the ballad of Jimmy Roscoe by Canadian musician Coe. I got a lot of great feedback, obviously, but some people thought that including the song was disrespectful and glorified Jimmy Roscoe at the expense of the fallen four, the four Mounties who lost

their lives. And I did half expect the feedback to come because it is a song that's designed to provoke conversation. And also, art and music is completely subjective and everyone will bring a different perspective to the table based on their own personal experiences. So my perspective is, is this. I don't personally agree that the song was glamorizing Roscoe. To me, it was being pragmatic about a grave situation with a very troubled and cruel man, a situation that should never have gotten to the point that it did. One suggestion was that I should have focused more on the fallen four and replaced it with a clip from their memorial service, but I did that. There were no clips available, so I chose to play last post, the bugle solo, as part of my tribute to the Fallen 4 at the end of the

first part of the series. And while the case was about the Fallen 4 obviously, it was also about a lot more than that, which is why the ballad of Jimmy Roscoe wasn't played until right at the end of part three. Listen, guys, I don't want to have to explain every little decision. Not only is it so boring to do that, but it's also totally okay for you to have a different perspective. because this podcast is art too. And as long as we can acknowledge that we don't all have to agree on which song is used at the end of a series, I do enjoy the discourse. So thank you.

Now, there is only one update of sorts. On June the 13th, 2021, Saskatchewan RCMP constable Shelby Patton, just 26 years old, lost his life on duty after he initiated a stop with a stolen truck. He was struck by the vehicle and tragically died at the scene. Obviously, this was another case that hit the RCMP family really hard. There was a large procession leading to his funeral, and the families of the fallen four from Marathorpe were, of course, watching on. Brock Myroll's mother, Colleen Myroll, told the Regina Leader Post that Constable Patton's death resonated with them, and her heart and condolences went to the Patton family because she knew the strike

they will face. She said one of the biggest triggers is when she sees flags. Quote, you never get over seeing your son's coffin draped in the Canadian flag. Episode 87, Storming the Capitol. Well, this was an episode naming fail, that's for sure. I originally called this Storming the Capital, Capital with an A, as a bit of a play on words, how Storming the Capital happened Canadian style in 1960. And obviously that went down like a lead balloon because this episode got the least amount of downloads of any of the other episodes I've released in the past year. So needless to say, I've changed the name of the episode to the 1966 parliamentary bombing. Now, I also made an error in this episode that was caught by the history and technology buffs out there.

So thank you to those who reached out. In the episode, I said that there was a loud noise and then someone yelled to call 9.5. 911. The problem I discovered was that 911 hadn't even been invented in 1966. It wasn't actually a thing in Canada until six years later in 1972. When I got this feedback, I was like, what? How did that end up in the episode? So I went back to my sources to check where it came from and I saw that the original article had said she was told to call an ambulance. And me on autopilot, change. it to 911. I could have just said I left it there intentionally to see if anyone noticed, but as always, you learn something every day. After the break, we'll talk about the three cases that raise some controversy around the rights of criminals versus the rights of the accused. Episode 86 The Johnson Bentley Family Murders

The case of the family who went camping in BC, girls Janet and Karen Johnson, 13 and 11 years old, their parents Bob and Jackie Johnson, and Jackie's parents, George and Edith Bentley. As the family enjoyed wilderness camping, they were stalked by David Shearing, a local troublemaker with malicious and pedophilic intentions. He murdered the four adults and kept girls Janet and Karen for an additional week before murdering them too. Now, this was a case that I had never intended on covering. As you know, I'm very sensitive to cases involving children, especially when there is sexual assault involved. But in this case, a close friend of mine had a connection to the family and was aware of them raising awareness for a petition in

advance of David Shearing's first ever parole hearing, which was this year, 2021. So my friend put me in contact with the lovely, lovely relatives of the Johnson and Bentley families, and the rest is history. It was a great pleasure to work with them, and I wanted to thank you all so much for taking action and signing that petition because it did result in a surge in more signatures. They plan on submitting the petition as proof that the community would not feel safe if David Shearing, who now goes by David Ennis, were to be released. So the more signatures, the better. As we note, the lead up to a parole hearing is incredibly difficult for families on the victim side, as they have to revisit their trauma as they prepare submissions on a very strict timeline.

The families had until May the 1st to submit the documents in time for the July hearing, and they just made it. But then there's an update. In June, family spokesperson Tammy Erychenkoff posted an update that his parole hearing that they were preparing for was pushed back two months to September of 2021. David Ennis was originally going to request full parole, but Tammy says he likely realized he's not going to get it, and is now busy filing any application he can, including day parole.

And this additional application meant he won't be ready in time for the original hearing, so that's why it's being pushed back. Tammy said that he's also eligible to apply for reduced security, as well as unescorted temporary absences, so they're waiting to see if he will. After the family was told that they have another two more months to wait, Tammy told Radio NL that they have been a strong. stressful few months, doing interviews, writing victim impact statements, gathering petitions, and submitting applications and then playing the waiting game, and this setback has been a blow.

She described it as another example of the flaw in the system and how it favours the offender. Quote, they have a lot of leeway as far as timelines, and when they file applications, there's no set deadlines, whereas the victims have to adhere to a more strict set of rules when it comes to submission of documents. And I included that quote, knowing that some of you will be raising your eyebrows. This trio of cases, Johnson and Bentley family, Brayton Bullock, and the Lush and Whiteway family's car crash, all had that very strong victim advocacy message that ruffled a few feathers, and I'll get into that more as I go through the other two cases. But I did want to wish the Johnson and Bentley families all the best in the upcoming hearing. I'll be sure to update you. I'll be sure to update

you all in the next case updates episode next year about what happens. Episode 85, the murder of Brayton Bullock. Brayton was the 14-year-old from the close-knit family who was stabbed to death by his 16-year-old cousin. This episode was about family dynamics and fractured families, and it was very close to my heart. I spent many, many hours on the phone with Colin Bullock, Brayton's dad, getting the details right and talking about Brayton. And I spoke to several other members of the Bullock family as well, and I really felt like I got to know this family and Brayton.

And that kind of makes the whole thing even more real. As you'll remember, at the end of the episode, Colin read a poem that Brayton wrote called My Identity. It was his idea to read the poem, and I heard a lot of great feedback from you that it was moving and powerful. I thought so too. So thanks again to Colin. Now, when it comes to ruffled feathers with a victim advocacy message, there are no updates on this case, but as you remember, one particular police officer failed to take proper care when dealing with a young offender, and Nick Bullock's conviction ended up being overturned on appeal. At 29 years old, he then took a plea deal for manslaughter in exchange for time served in jail, and the judge said that despite him not showing any remorse for what he'd done, they had to consider. that some rehabilitation must have occurred during his time in prison. Obviously, the Bullock family were incredibly upset about the whole thing, as they have every right to be, and I did include

their perspective on Nick's release into the episode that I produced. Now, as the show continues to grow and I get a more diverse set of people listening and a diverse set of perspectives, I've noticed a trend that whenever I work with the families and incorporate their opinions and perspectives, I always get pushback. And by the time this Brayton Bullock episode came around, it was after the Lush and Whiteway Families episode which had already ruffled some feathers. And we'll talk about that now. Episode 84, The Lush and Whiteway Families. This was the story of that horrific car crash in Newfoundland, where John and Sandra Lush were driving their daughter, Suzanne, her boyfriend Josh Whiteway, and their newly adopted cat to the airport after a trip back home to visit

family. But their car was hit by another car driven by an intoxicated 22-year-old man driving home from a nightclub. It was a scene of chaos. John and Sandra Lush were killed on impact, as was the cat. Suzanne Lush and Josh Whiteway were left with serious injuries, and Josh and a wheelchair for life. Nicholasville Nerve, the man who drove the other car, ended up walking away from two charges of impaired driving causing death because the RCMP did not inform him of his rights to speak with a lawyer. Now it should be noted that to date,

he has never shown any remorse for his actions, nor has he apologised to the families for the devastation that he caused. Now, this case was not on my radar at all, until a listener from Newfoundland and Labrador contacted me to tell me what had happened, and I looked into it straight away. So after the charges against Nicholas Villeneuve were dismissed, Josh Whiteway was active on social media trying to raise awareness with the goal of having the Crown file and appeal.

And he wrote detailed descriptions of what happened in the crash and the aftermath and posted them to his Facebook. They were so vivid and raw, and he clearly wanted the message out there. So I contacted him to ask if I could help in any way with an episode. Now, because he was busy enough organizing, we agreed that I would put a script together based off the local media coverage and his social media posts.

And then he reviewed and provided additional details and clarifications as he wanted to. This episode actually ended up being one of my most popular episodes from the last year, I think because it was so timely, but it also got quite a bit of feedback. The first bunch of feedback was about how emotionally draining the episode ended up being. Some described it as so disturbing that they had to take a break in the middle. One person complained that I included way too much information about the crash itself and described it as beyond gratuitous. Perhaps that might be so, but I wanted to help Josh raise awareness of his family's situation

and telling the story in as much detail as he wanted was my goal. If you want to raise awareness of the dangers of drinking and driving and how it impacts those involved, you have to tell a visceral story. And this level of detail was necessary and obviously provided by Josh Whiteway himself with the approval of Suzanne Lush. Now, there are a few other things that spurred some feedback in this episode. A bunch of families who had lost loved ones in a similar way, through drink driving, reached out to share their stories too. Thank you all so much.

I heard some nuance from those in the Mothers Against Drink Driving Space, or Mad, that this type of crime should never be called a car accident. They call this the A word, because it takes away from the seriousness of the incident. It's not a car accident. It's a car crash. Someone who chooses to drink and drive is making an intentional mistake. It's not an accident. So that's a change of terminology I'll be mindful of moving forward. Now, the other bit of feedback about the victim advocacy message only came from a handful of people, but to me that's major controversy. So, after the Whiteway and Lush families and Brayton Bullock episodes, some listeners were left with the impression that I was trying to push a message that the rights of a victim should be more important than the rights

of the accused. One listener described the episode as having anti-detainee sentiment, saying that I promoted a message that only a detainee who was innocent should have rights, but if they're detained and guilty, they don't deserve any. So to respond, I have to admit that I was a little surprised to hear that the episode had left that impression, so I reviewed my scripts for any language like this that I might have missed, or any tone that might unintentionally convey this message that I am against detainees. I couldn't find anything, but that doesn't mean that your impression is not valid. One thing I did notice was that the majority of this feedback seems to originate from those in the legal or justice field, particularly on the criminal defense side. And I do want to note that personal

experience always colors interpretation. But still, anti-detainee sentiment is most definitely not the impression I intended to leave anyone with, so let me clarify here. If you are detained by the police for any reason, you need to be read your rights, which are and should be protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a listener correctly pointed out, if you are accused of a crime, you need to be afforded all the rights available because you are now facing losing your liberty, possibly forever. Now, I think that in situations like this, where listeners are coming at an episode from different angles, ranging from the side of the victim to the side of the accused, it's important to remember that two things can be true at the same time. The police

forgot to read the accused their rights. It was a breach, no question about it, it should not have happened. But the impact that this police mistake had on the victim's side is also true, and has impacted their lives for years, decades even. And yep, a bunch of you keep reminding me that there is no place for victims in the criminal justice system. After all, it's not called the victim justice system. It's all about the criminals. But does that mean that those on the victim side are not allowed to tell their stories? They're not allowed to have an opinion about their experience? They aren't allowed to try and make the system better? Personally, I think improvements to their experience while journeying the criminal justice system is necessary and completely possible.

These people deserve more support, period, and the rights of the accused, or the person detained, do not need to be compromised to achieve this. There's also one other point I wanted to make. On the episodes when I'm working with families, and there were quite a few this year alone, when they're recounting their tragedies to me, I tend to absorb their emotions and the points that they want to emphasize, and it all kind of pours into the episode, and that is what you hear. And I know a lot of you pick up on this and have been complimentary about it. But sometimes, listeners don't agree with the points that the families want to emphasize in the episode, and they send critiques that I should have censored certain points or provided a counter-argument so that the episode is more balanced for their tastes. An example is that one listener was offended that I included a quote from Josh Whiteway,

saying that he did not blame the police officer for not reading the driver his rights properly. Josh said that he understood that the officer had arrived at a scene of chaos and that human errors can occur. And it seemed that the listener was upset that Josh didn't blame the police more because the listener was of the opinion that the police were completely outfault. Now, regardless of what you or I might think, Josh is entitled to have whatever opinion he wants about the police officer. We are all entitled to our opinions.

But as the victim and survivor of this crime, the opinion that he has is valid, even if you don't agree with it, even if I don't agree with it. So when it comes to listener expectations about what I should or shouldn't include in an episode, it is such a delicate line. And I have spent so much time twisting myself up in knots trying to figure out. how to do this or how to do that so that the least number of people are offended. But I've come to the conclusion that it's just not possible for us to all agree on whether I get it right every time. And that's okay. It's good to have discussions because this is how we

learn and grow. And for me, that's really important. So before I move on to the next episode, let me clarify. A person accused or convicted of a crime has rights and is entitled to have those rights protected. But the people on the victim's side have their rights too, much less rights, and just because I emphasize their side of the story does not mean that I place any less preference on the rights of the accused or the criminal. It just so happens that this is more of a victim-focused podcast than an offender-based podcast. If you would like to know more about your rights on either the criminal side or the victim side, I have included resource links in the show notes to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly the legal rights section

which talks about your rights as the accused. And I've also included a link to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights too, so you can make sure you're prepared and informed in case you ever need to be. Episode 80, the disappearance of Madison Scott. 20-year-old Maddie was camping with friends at Hogsback Lake in British Columbia in May of 2011. But the birthday party they were attending ended early and Maddie was left there to camp by herself. This was the last time she was ever seen. May 29th, 2021 was the 10-year anniversary of her disappearance and the RCMP released a video with a message from her parents, Dawn and Alden Scott, who were in sad belief that their daughter has been missing for 10 years. Dawn spoke about how Maddie has also just turned 30 and

described her daughter as a wonderful, messy, creative-loving aunt and sister-in-law. Because of COVID-19, the family, again, was not able to stage their annual poker ride to help raise awareness, which was really disappointing for them. But they're still looking for help to find Maddie and bring her home and say they won't stop looking until they have answers. They continue to offer a $100,000 reward for any information that will lead to the arrest of suspects responsible for Maddie's disappearance. Please see the show notes for more information and numbers to call. And the funny thing is that despite me thinking that you guys don't like unsolved cases

or that there would be complaints, this was actually another of my most popular episodes. And it got me thinking maybe I should do more unsolved cases to try and raise awareness. After the break, I'll tell you about a big update to the Lorillette's and Peter Beckett case. as well as the Mad Trapper of Rat River, Saskatoon freezing deaths and more. Episode 78, The Mad Trapper of Rat River. I don't think this case needs much of an introduction. The historic case of a northern Canadian manhunt was another popular one. The downloads were similar to other episodes,

but I got a lot of feedback that this was your favourite episode. I actually tend to agree. Historic cases aren't generally my preference, but this ended up being one of my most favorite episodes to write, just because it was action almost the entire time and the words just kind of flew out of my fingers. There is one update on this case. Constable Edgar Millen was the officer who died in the line of duty during that manhunt,

and the memorial dedicated to him has just been rebuilt in March of this year. The memorial called the Millen Cair is situated exactly at the spot where he was killed by the Mad Trapper in 1930. Accessible only by snowmobile, the memorial is 40 kilometres outside Fort McPherson on the Millen Creek near Rat River. Permanent plaques have been installed in the area in English, French and Gwich Inn to recognize Millen's good judgment and the sacrifice he made. A small ceremony was held at the site. Episodes 76 and 77, the murder of Laura Laura Letz was the beloved school teacher who went on an adventure to New Zealand after a painful breakup. Instead, she met a new love interest there.

Peter Beckett was fun and adventurous and seemingly the perfect counterbalance to Laura's quiet and gentle restraint, and he eventually moved to Canada to marry her. But things were not so perfect under the surface. Their relationship was described by friends as Rocky, and in 2010, the couple of couple were out for an evening boat ride in British Columbia when Laura fell from the boat and drowned. As you remember, she couldn't swim, and Peter insisted he tried to save his wife, but he was a big guy who described himself as being too buoyant to get to the bottom of the lake, so he grabbed a rock to weigh him down and tried again. But his efforts were unsuccessful,

and Laura died. Now, Peter Beckett originally said that Laura fell out of the boat. But once he was in prison, he changed his story when he recounted it to a cellmate, this time implying that she had died by suicide. There was also a big plot involving Peter allegedly trying to get his cellmate to murder witnesses so they couldn't testify. He was eventually charged with five counts of conspiracy to commit murder, but those charges were dropped, and he went to court on the charge for first-degree murder of his wife, Laura.

Peter Beckett had always maintained his innocence, and there were no witnesses and no physical evidence linking him to Laura's death. But the circumstantial evidence was strange, and so was his behaviour, both pre and post offence. Prosecutors alleged that he killed Laura out of greed to cash in on her life insurance payouts and her teacher's pension. The first trial ended in a hung jury. You'll remember this is the guy who had all kinds of outbursts at the trial, including dancing the Haka and making all kinds of outlandish claims. The second trial resulted in a first-degree murder conviction with a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years.

Where we left off, Peter Beckett had served nine years in prison and had appealed his conviction, arguing that the case against him was circumstantial. In September of 2020, the BC Court of Appeal overturned the guilty verdict, described the Crown's case as not a strong one, and questioned if it was in the interests of justice to proceed with a third trial. But the appeal court stopped short of a full acquittal, leaving it up to the Crown to decide if there would be a third trial. And in January of this year, 2021, it was announced that the Crown would not proceed with a third trial. Peter had already been released on bail by this point.

But a month later, the Crown announced that it was seeking to have the conviction reinstated through the Supreme Court. Peter then filed a cross-appeal. So essentially, the Crown was asking for Peter's conviction to be reinstated without having to go to trial again, and Peter was asking for it to be dropped. In April, the Supreme Court said that it would not hear the appeal, and in June of 2021, the Crown stayed the proceedings, which means that things are back to where they were, before everyone went to the Supreme Court. So, 64-year-old Peter Beckett served nine years in prison, and that's it.

It's not known where he is now, whether he's still in Canada or whether he moved back to New Zealand. Episode 75, Saskatoon Freezing Deaths. This was the episode about the practice of law enforcement picking up intoxicated indigenous people and dropping them off on the outskirts of town. This practice was something that had been only whispered, the subject of rumours until the year 2000 when one man, Daryl Knight, survived the practice. Then the can of worms was opened and the cases of Rodney Nystice and Lawrence Wegener came to light again. Thank you so much to Danny Parody for suggesting this case to me and for researching it. She was also responsible for suggesting the Mayerthorpe tragedy and researching that one too.

This case was really close to my heart and I got so much great feedback from so many of you who didn't realize the full story of what had happened and the aftermath. The themes of the case are so similar to what's happening right now with residential schools. The themes of treating indigenous people as though they are lesser than. And as with the freezing deaths, these indigenous stories end up reduced to urban legends until concrete proof was discovered and people were forced to see the reality. But it shouldn't have taken the discovery of that proof. We should have believed them from the start.

November 26, 2020 was the 30-year anniversary of Neil Stonechild's death. To mark the occasion, the Indigenous Joint Action Coalition held a vigil to highlight that while some things have changed for Indigenous people since then, a lot hasn't. Spokesperson Erica Violet Lee said, quote, I know the Saskatoon Police Service have talked about making strides and reconciliation towards something different, but the reality is Indigenous people still face a lot of these same issues today. In February of this year, it was announced that a mural project was underway by Saskatoon-based Indigenous artist Kevin Wasserquate, who wanted to honour Neil Stonechild's memory.

He's currently working with a gallery to find a location and funding for the project. Neil's sister Erica Stonechild told the star Phoenix that she has no problem with the creation of a mural but was worried about the reaction from some corners of the community. Quote, will it be embraced? Will it be disgraced? Will it be defaced? You have to think about all these things that could possibly go wrong with something like this and really have good insight into what you're doing. You wouldn't want it to be the outlet for someone's anger or frustration for any means. She also emphasised. that any project completed in Neil's name should not involve financial gain,

and the family would like to see any proceeds donated to the wrestling club he belonged to. Quote, Neil was passionate about a lot of things. He had a very loving, giving heart. Now, when we're talking about errors and feedback, I got two things wrong in the introduction to this Saskatoon Freezing Deaths episode. I mentioned an old adage about hypothermia. You're not dead until you're warm and dead, and was told by many people that it's not about hypothermia, it's about the prolonged resuscitation that's needed when someone with hypothermia has been rescued. Hyperthermia can slow down your heart and breathing, so it might look like the person has passed away, but in actual fact, they may still be able to be revived. So the body must be rewarmed,

and resuscitation continued, and it's only when they've been warmed up to a certain temperature that they can be pronounced dead. You're not dead until you're warm and dead. The other thing I got wrong was that I also said that 50% of your body warmth can be lost through your head and that's why scarves and hats are important. I mean, it's something that we've been told all our lives, but apparently it too is a myth that I did not think to fact-check.

Scientific tests from around 2008 found that the head accounts for about 7% of the body's surface area and the heat loss is fairly proportional to the amount of skin that's showing. So instead of losing 50% of your body warmth from your head, it's only about 7 to 10% with a heat loss that is fairly proportionate to the amount of skin that's showing. So thank you to everyone who sent in corrections. Often we don't know what we don't know and repeat myths that we've always believed to be true. Episode 74, the Renfrew County Murders. This was the horrific, intimate partner violence story,

the case of a man who went on a spree to get revenge on three women who did nothing wrong other than being his ex-partner or his unrequited love interest. Anastasia Cusick, Natalie Warmadam and Carol Colettin lost their lives that day in 2015. Basil Barutski was convicted at trial and sentenced to life in prison with no parole for 70 years. Now the update is that Natalie Warmadam's brother, Joshua Hopkins, had an idea to raise awareness of violence against women and to encourage men to own their responsibility to end it too.

In March of 2021, it was announced that he had teamed up with Margaret Atwood, Canadian author of The Handmaid's Tale, along with composer Jake Heggy, for a commission of eight songs by Houston Grand Opera and Canada's National Arts Centre Orchestra. Margaret Atwood wrote a series of poems called Songs for Murdered Sisters. Jake set them to music and Natalie's brother Joshua is a professional singer, a baritone, so he provided the vocals. Joshua told the media that he felt so numb after his sister's death that it was almost impossible to comprehend. Quote, but Margaret's words and Jake's music have opened a door and stepping through it has allowed me to access all my complicated feelings surrounding Natalie's death. The set of eight songs have now been released as both a film and a digital album,

which was launched in March of 2021 to align with International Women's Day. You can learn more about this very powerful and emotional project at Songs for Murdered Sisters.com. So we've now gone through all of the updates from the cases we covered in the past year. Look out for Part 2, coming in a few weeks. cover updates from cases covered in the years before that, including significant new information on Dennis Olland, who was accused of murdering his father, New Brunswick businessman Richard Olland, and there'll also be an update on the parents of Ezekiel Stephan, the toddler who died

of meningitis in Alberta, plus a whole lot more. Thank you so much to end your best for helping me research this episode, and thanks also to We Talk of Dreams for audio editing. If you're looking for something to listen to right now, I'm happy to tell you that the fraud podcast, Fool Me Twice, is back for season two, a season all about a mysterious diamond scam. Here's a promo, and I'll see you soon. When we came back into Rome, I got a message from one of my sales girls here in the office saying,

oh, sell, we need to talk to you. Yeah, at that point in time, I had no idea what was in store. Oh shit. I think there's an issue with the entire. amount has been pulled out of our accounts. This is Fool Me Twice. This is a podcast about diamonds. My mom and I were approached by a woman in Hong Kong who owns a diamond business and had a

pretty compelling story to tell. This podcast follows that story and attempts to unravel some of the shadier aspects of the diamond industry as a whole. The feedback from him was that she is a very smart woman. She is conniving and very good at getting away with these sort of things. Diamonds are the ultimate status symbol. Trust is such a centerpiece of human society. You can find For Me Twice All About Diamonds on Ozcast Network and all podcast platforms.