Canadian True Crime - Major Case Updates and Feedback: 2022 [1]

Episode Date: October 1, 2022

These episodes take you through cases we've covered that have had major or notable updates, or have attracted notable feedback. Kristi will also be responding to some of the most common feedback received.Approximate timestamps:(Give or take a few minutes)3:00 National Day for Truth and Reconciliation - September 30 24-Hour National Residential School Crisis Line 1-866-925-4419 Take Action: The T&R Commission Calls to Action5:00 Remembering the late Diem Saunders - sibling of Loretta Saunders  Read: “Remembering Loretta Saunders: A MMIW Story” by Diem Saunders9:00 Maranda Shelley Peters and Helen Betty Osborne21:00 Supreme Court Decision affecting consecutive sentences:- The Klaus Family Murders- The Quebec City Mosque Shootings- Edward Downey- Derek Saretzky - Crime Beat series Darkness in the Pass- Toronto Van Attack- Dellen Millard & Mark Smich- Douglas Garland- Basil Borutski35:00 The Beatle Bandit - now an awardwinning true crime book by Nate Hendley36:00 The Murder of Laura Letts / Peter Beckett41:00 The Death of Darcy Allan SheppardLook out for early, ad-free release on CTC premium feeds: available on Amazon Music (included with Prime), Apple Podcasts, Patreon and Supercast. Full list of resources, information sources, credits and music credits:See the page for this episode at www.canadiantruecrime.ca/episodes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Canadian true crime is a completely independent production, funded mainly through advertising. The podcast often has coarse language and disturbing content. It's not for everyone. Hi everyone, and thanks for listening. As I mentioned last time, I had to do a reshuffle of episodes, in part to make way for a three-part series starting November the 1st, about a well-known Canadian musician, or should I say former musician now. Today is the first of two episodes with cases we've covered that have had major updates or attracted notable feedback, and along the way I'll be sharing some of my own thoughts and opinions as well as some other things I learned after the episodes had aired. Part two will be available in 24 hours, and for those listening on one of the premium feeds on Apple Podcasts, Patreon or

Supercast, it's available ad-free right now. Some of the cases we'll be discussing in these two episodes include Darcy Ellen Shepard, the Abbotsford Killer, the Johnstead, and Bentley family murders, the Brentwood 5, the Renfrew County murders and the death of Ezekiel Stefan. We'll also be talking about a recent Supreme Court decision in Canada that's already had a major impact on the sentences given to the perpetrators of some of the most heinous crimes in recent Canadian history, the Klaus family murders, the Toronto Van attack and the Quebec mosque shooting, as well as Douglas Garland and Dellen Millard and Mark Smitch. As always, we'll get you up to speed with a quick overview of each case and if you want to see the list of all the cases

we're discussing and the appropriate timestamps, give or take a few minutes, see the show notes. Now, just quickly before we start, I want it to say a few words about feedback. To everyone who sent in complimentary, encouraging, helpful and educational feedback, I really appreciate it. When it comes to the critical feedback, people often tell me to just ignore the haters or whatever. can't understand why I choose to respond to the most common feedback via these episodes. But here's the thing. I don't consider critical feedback to be hate unless it's communicated in a hateful way. Obviously, I don't know everything and more importantly, I don't know what I don't know. But there's always nuance and context to be taken into consideration and I believe that if I

dismiss all negative feedback, then I'm effectively limiting my growth. But more than that, Some feedback I've received is based on incorrect assumptions that can be really harmful. So rather than just dismissing it as hate, I think it's important to respond to it in a public forum like this. So when I respond to feedback, it isn't about clapping back to the haters or dismissing anything that's critical. It's about open discourse and the discussion of ideas, something that has all but been lost in the strange world we find ourselves living in today. So if you're interested to get into the nitty-gritty, stay tuned. I wanted to start today with two important acknowledgements. The first is that September the 30th, 2022 commemorates the second National Day for Truth and Reconciliation here in Canada.

It's a day where we reflect on the atrocities committed against indigenous peoples in the name of colonization. For more than a century, about 150,000 First Nations may take. and Inuit children were forcibly removed from their families and placed in residential boarding schools funded by the government and run by religious organizations. There was widespread neglect and abuse and thousands of children died on their own school grounds. Today, we honour the victims and survivors of Canada's residential school system and we acknowledge the painful legacy at left as well as the ongoing impact. We also acknowledge that reconciliation can't be achieved through just words, or wearing an orange shirt or buying a truth and reconciliation themed donut. What indigenous people need is action.

There are many ways that we can help. In fact, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended 94 calls to action, but as always, getting them actioned is another story. We at Canadian True Crime are led by number 84, which, calls on the media to continue to provide dedicated news coverage and online public info on issues of concern to indigenous peoples and all Canadians. There's a role for all of us to play in reconciliation, so please see the show notes for a link to the calls to action. If you're a former residential school student or a relative of one and you need immediate support, you can contact the 24-hour national residential school crisis line at 1866, 9-6.com.

925-4419. The next thing I wanted to acknowledge is related to episode 56, the murder of Loretta Saunders. Loretta was the pregnant 26-year-old Inuit woman from Nova Scotia, who was passionate about raising awareness for missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. She had sub-let her apartment to a couple and was growing impatient when they weren't paying the rent, so she went to the apartment to ask about it in person. Instead, the couple attacked her from behind, suffocated her to death, stuffed her body in a hockey bag and dumped it off the highway.

The couple, Blake Leggett and Victoria Hennibery, stole her car and bank cards and drove to Ontario, where they were apprehended. This update is not about them, though. It's about the younger sibling of Loretta Saunders, the person who previously went by Delilah, although in the years since they have changed their name to Diem Saunders. As you'll remember, after Loretta's murder, Diem took off where she left off as an activist,

fighting for awareness of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Diem played a key role in the National Inquiry and was a published writer. In 2017, they were given the Ambassador of Conscious Award from Amnesty International for their work advocating for Indigenous rights in Canada. When we covered Loretta's story, it was a collaboration with Jordan from The Nighttime podcast, and DM was featured heavily in the episodes with an interview with Jordan at the end. You'll remember that DM was pregnant at the time and worried about what life was going to be

like as an Indigenous parent. They had also experienced many health challenges, which included needing to be on the waiting list for a liver transplant. After Loretta's murder, D.M had developed substance use disorder and was in a never-ending fight to overcome it. Diem became a parent and never stopped fighting, both to raise awareness of indigenous issues but also to overcome their own trauma. DM made the decision to move back to be with family in Happy Valley Goose Bay in Labrador. But just a few months after that, on September the 3rd,

7th, 2021, it was announced that 29-year-old Diem Saunders had died suddenly. At first, the RCMP announced that they were investigating the circumstances, but concluded that nothing criminal had happened. After that, Diem's mother, Miriam Saunders, spoke with salt wire. She said that Diem had successfully weaned off opioids using the prescription drug Suboxone, but their goal was to be completely drug-free, so DM started to wean off suboxone after that. Miriam said that, unfortunately, the withdrawal pain was too much and DM started self-medicating with alcohol to curb it. The cause of DM's death was accidental suffocation and other complications. Miriam described her child's death as a tragedy, but she also takes comfort in knowing that

Diem never stopped fighting. Quote, they were trying. As far as I'm concerned, they kicked it. Even if it was just for one day or one hour, they did it. The sudden death of DM saunders left many in Atlantic Canada and across the nation shocked and devastated. Diem was a strong person, someone who was described as leaving a legacy of being a strong voice for justice. They were also an eloquent writer. They wrote an amazing tribute article to Loretta in 2015, complete with pictures. There's a link to it in the show notes. Last year, D.M. Saunders was recognized posthumously with the first-voice Indigenous Advocate Award for their community activism on behalf of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. It's just an incredible tragedy. Our sincere

condolences to the loved ones of DM Saunders. Rest in power, DM. While I'm on the topic of Indigenous cases, I wanted to address some common feedback that I received. Now, if you are Indigenous and listening, just a content warning for the next little bit for Indigenous trauma and mention of residential schools. I'm going to bring up some of the feedback I've received

because much of it is built on myths and falsehoods. So this is a kind of debunking, but it might be difficult to hear. Episode 97 was the murder of Miranda Shelley Peter, the 15-year-old from Whitehorse in Yukon, who was strangled by her teenage boyfriend. He kept her body under his bed for more than a year before it was finally discovered.

The episode covered issues like intergenerational trauma, residential schools, and police apathy when it comes to investigating missing and murdered indigenous people. After covering this case, and of course the Helen Betty Osborne case, I've been told things like, quote, lately it's been getting very difficult to look past your bias of the indigenous situation in Canada. These people are often upset that I didn't come down harder on the offender, and they complain that I'm perpetuating an extreme victimhood mentality. At the end of the day, I try to give everyone a fair deal.

I approach every single case with empathy, whether it's about the victim or survivor or the offender. And when I talk about an offender's difficult childhood, it is literally just that. The person was a child at one point and they deserve empathy for what they went through. It doesn't mean that I think the crime they committed later was justified, nor is it a reason or an excuse for what they did. And it doesn't mean that I think they should get away with it. It is literally just facts about a person's background that may help us understand the circumstances that led up to the crime. I also wanted to point out that I have given exactly the same treatment to other offenders. For example, Dennis Cheeseman or Sean Hennessy from the Mayer Thorpe tragedy.

Same thing with Joshua Frank from the Klaus family murders. And perhaps even Nelson Hart from the Karen and Krista Hart episodes. All of these people were culpable in some way, but their stories are not black and white. There's nuance and context there, shades of grey, which is always important to include. And it's quite revealing that I only ever hear complaints when I show empathy to indigenous people. So in the case of Miranda Shelley Peters, some thought I was too critical of the police. They say things like, she was known to run away, think about the people. rampant alcohol use and domestic violence. The police had their hands full just keeping the peace

there and it was a rural community. The RCMP were clearly tapped out of resources. Now my response to this is that sure, Miranda may have taken off before, but this time she didn't just disappear without a trace. There were very obvious clues that should have been first priority for investigators. Like the fact that her boyfriend disappeared at the same time, for a week and was also the last one to have seen her alive. But instead of investigating those leads further, the RCMP announced they were going straight for a massive manhunt, which of course turned up nothing, because Miranda's body was located in a house just down the street from her own home, lying under her boyfriend's bed the whole time. And regardless of whether Miranda had run away

before, regardless of whether she used alcohol or what kind of family she came from. She was a 15-year-old girl and deserved the same effort put into finding her that any other teenage girl might have. And the point is further illustrated by the actual outcome to the case. Miranda didn't run away at all. She was literally strangled to death in her boyfriend's bedroom and her body was not found for 15 months. So I'll take the side of the teenage girl over the police on this one. But when it comes to being critical of the police, I always point out when they do good work. Use clever investigation tactics or a given awards or medals for service.

I don't agree with people who say we should go easy on the police. They should be held to high standards because they chose that particular role and the heavy public responsibilities that come with it. And when they stuff up, their actions should be analyzed, otherwise how are things supposed to get better or improve? Now, over the last year or so, I've mentioned residential schools a couple of times, in the context of the thousands of unmarked graves that have been discovered. Each time I mention it, I receive feedback from some listeners that for some reason

spend their time arguing that residential schools weren't that bad. Tuberculosis was rampant, they say, and it's not uncommon for mass graves to be used in times of disease outbreak. They complain that I've left out or manipulated facts like this to further a cause. Now, I'm not sure what cause it would be other than historical accuracy. So I looked up the tuberculosis angle, but I found even more evidence about how the poor conditions, filth and neglect turned residential schools into veritable petri dishes, breeding grounds for much higher rates of disease than any other community, indigenous or otherwise.

And there are stats to back it up. I'll quote from a 222 article by Doug Cuthand for the Staff Phoenix, with the headline, many residential school deaths were caused by disease. Quote, death came from a number of forms. Some died from violence inflicted on the child by a staff member. There are stories of priests beating down the people. the child or accident such as falling down a flight of stairs. However, most of the children died

from disease exacerbated by malnutrition and crowded filthy living conditions. There are both crimes of commission and omission. Neglect and poor living conditions are crimes that were built right into the fabric of these institutions. Many of the students had diseases like tuberculosis, scrofala, pneumonia and other diseases of poverty. When it comes to those tuberculosis rates, in 2021, Jeremy Appell reported for CTV news the findings of two tuberculosis experts, who determined that the mass death from disease in residential schools was the result of deliberate neglect. And the stats are astonishing. In the 1930s and 1940s, tuberculosis death rates in indigenous communities were 700 deaths per 100,000. people, which is apparently very high. But at residential schools, run in partnership by the federal

government with various religious institutions, the death rates were astronomically higher. Instead of 700 deaths, it was 8,000 deaths per 100,000 children. And just before we move on to the next case, I've got something to say about the extreme victimhood mentality complaint when it comes to Indigenous communities. Someone wrote to me, quote, we've thrown money and resources at them for decades, and time and time again it has been embezzled and squandered. The person talks about corruption within indigenous communities

involving chiefs and elders. I mean, corruption is part of the human condition and can be found wherever people are found, indigenous or otherwise. In May this year, the Angus Reed Institute released the results of a study that found that public trust that Canadian businesses and governments are operating above board and with transparency is low. Seven in ten people believe bribery and theft of public funds is a problem or a very big problem in Canada.

And when people argue that the government should stop supporting indigenous communities because in some communities there may be corruption and misuse of funds, I've got a little bit of a story to tell you. It's about Rogers Media, but it could be about any other large corporation. Now, Rogers is the private, for-profit business conglomerate that handles a large chunk of our country's telecommunications, and they recently made international headlines because of a major nationwide communications outage with widespread impact. Not only was it downright embarrassing, but it was a big deal. Now, Rogers was one of the companies who applied for and received a federal government wage subsidy

handout during the pandemic. This is despite posting a gross profit of $4.6 billion in 2018, which more than doubled to $9.6 billion in 2019. That's gross profit, the money left over after the expenses of being paid. A percentage of that gross profit is then paid back to their shareholders as a return on their investment. Now, as for the criteria of this federal wage subsidy handout, the Government of Canada website states, quote, as an employer in Canada who has seen a drop in revenue during the COVID-19 pandemic, you may be eligible for a subsidy to cover part of the wages you paid employees. So let's see what happened with that drop in revenue when it came to Rogers. In 2020, their revenues decreased by 8.5%, and they only made $8.9 billion in gross profit.

Now, despite posting these massive profits each year, and despite the fact that Rogers has ample access to credit if they need it, they were eligible to apply for the government wage subsidy and they received $82 million. The Government of Canada website states that the subsidy should be used to, quote, help rehire workers, prevent further job losses and ease your business back into normal operations. But Rogers went on to cut a whole bunch of jobs from its sports and media division, how many they wouldn't say. And as they continued to post billions of dollars in gross profits, they also continued to pay their shareholders, while being responsible for one of, if not the largest and most serious telecommunications outage our country has ever seen.

So if we're talking about who should receive government handouts and who can be trusted to use those handouts wisely, let's not focus on possible corruption that might happen in local communities. Because as I said, Rogers is by no means an isolated example. Many highly profitable companies accepted these wage subsidies from the government. These kinds of things happen every single day right under our noses. The Klaus family murders. Jason Klaus, along with a friend Joshua Frank, murdered Jason's parents, Gordon and Sandra Klaus,

and his sister, Monica Klaus. Jason had been having personal problems related to drugs and gambling, and things were about to come to a head with his father, who he worked for and lived on the same property. Jason Klaus decided that killing his family was the only way to get out of his situation, and he offered his friend Joshua money to help. After a Mr. Big Sting, the two men were found guilty and sentenced to concurrent sentences, one for Jason Klaus' parents and another for his sister, to be served at the same time.

This amounted to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. Now, the Crown appealed this sentence and the court imposed consecutive sentences, so it's still life in prison, but now they would not be eligible for parole for 50 years. Now, the major update I have isn't specifically about this case. It's about a Supreme Court of Canada ruling in another case that has already affected this as well as several other high-profile cases and will likely impact even more. The case that started it all is a case that we haven't covered yet. The Quebec City Mosque shootings, an anti-Islam and anti-refugee terrorist attack that happened

in 2017. As around 50 people were finishing their nightly prayers, a 27-year-old man stormed the Quebec City mosque with two firearms and opened fire, leaving six people dead and injuring another five. The offender pleaded guilty and he was saying. sentence to consecutive sentences, ending up with no chance of parole for 40 years, which is 15 years more than the typical 25 for first-degree murder. So he would have been 67 years old when he's first eligible to apply for parole. Now both the Crown and the defence went on to appeal that

sentence for opposite reasons, and it ended up before the Supreme Court, who would be required to make a decision about whether consecutive parole ineligibility periods were a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada's top court decided that they were a violation. In May of 2022, a decision was released that stated imposing such long parole ineligibility periods brings the administration of justice into disrepute. Quote, they are intrinsically incompatible with human dignity because of their degrading nature, as they deny offenders any moral autonomy by depriving them in advance and definitively of any possibility of reintegration into society. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the Quebec City Mosque shooters' offenses were

heinous crimes that were, quote, of unspeakable horror and left deep and agonizing scars in the heart of the Muslim community and of Canadian society as a whole. But the decision goes on to state that life sentences without a realistic possibility of parole leaves offenders with no incentive to rehabilitate themselves. In other words, if they know they'll likely be in prison until they die, why bother trying to get better? The Supreme Court decision is referred to as R. V. Bicenet, after the Quebec Mosque shooter, who will now be able to apply for parole when he is 52 years old. But obviously it also has widespread implications when it comes to other cases where consecutive sentences have been imposed. In fact, there were several sentencing appeals before the court that had been put on hold until after the decision was released.

Jason Klaus and Joshua Frank were among them, and the following month, the Alberta Appeal Court cut their parole ineligibility periods from 50 years down to 25. It doesn't mean that they'll be released at that time, just that they'll be eligible to apply for parole. It's ultimately up to the parole board to decide who was released. And this decision has already been applied to two other offenders. You might remember episode 45, a Calgary Alberta case where 49-year-old Edward Downey murdered single mother Sarah Bailey and her five-year-old daughter, Talia Marsman. Sarah's friend had been an abusive relationship with Edward Downey,

and Sarah was supporting her friend as she planned to leave. When he found out he killed Sarah as an act of spiteful revenge and decided to kill five-year-old Talia so that there would be no witnesses. Edward Downey had been given two consecutive parole ineligibility periods, Meaning he would have been 96 years old before he's eligible for parole after 50 years. It was brought back down to 25, so he can now apply for parole at age 71. Another case affected is also from Calgary, the murder of Terry Blanchett, his two-year-old daughter, Haley Dunbar Blanchett, an unrelated victim Hannah Mechate in Blairmore, Alberta.

All three victims were killed. by 22-year-old Derek Sureski, and while we haven't covered this case on this podcast, there was an excellent two-part series on it by Crime Beat, called Darkness in the Pass. Journalist and host Nancy Hicks described it as one of the most disturbing cases she'd ever covered as a crime reporter. It appears that Siretsky killed them just because he wanted to, and the details of what he did to them are so heinous that he was sentenced. to three consecutive life sentences, which meant that he wouldn't be able to apply for parole for 75 years when he would be 97 years old. This decision was overturned and he's now back to a 25-year

parole in eligibility period. He'll be in his mid-40s. Another well-known case, affected by this judgment, is the Toronto van attack. We haven't covered this case yet, but in two, 2018, the 25-year-old self-described In-Sull rented a van and drove it along a busy Toronto sidewalk, aiming to kill women and gain notoriety in the process. He managed to kill eight women, along with two men that day, and left many others seriously injured, including one woman who never left hospital and only recently died of her injuries. The offender had been found guilty of 10 counts of first-degree murder, but his sentencing hearing was paused

pending the Supreme Court's decision. Those on the victim's side had been told that this offender would likely get consecutive parole ineligibility periods, so they were sorely disappointed when the judge sentenced him to concurrent sentences, meaning he would be eligible to apply for parole after 25 years when he's 50 years old.

Kathy Riddell, one of the survivors who was severely injured, told CBC news that she was enraged by the decision and ashamed of the court system for doing what they did. Referring to the Supreme Court's comment about denying offenders a realistic possibility of being granted parole before they die, she said, quote, I'll tell you what cruel and unusual punishment is. It's an innocent person being maimed or an innocent person has. having their life ripped apart, that is cruel and unusual punishment. Now, there was much discussion in the media about what this means. Legal professionals pointed out that it wasn't as bad as everyone thinks, with reminders that these are not automatic release dates, they're just the first date the offender is able to apply for parole.

It doesn't mean they're going to get it, and if the crimes were heinous enough to warrant consecutive sentences in the first place, they likely won't be getting out. For concerned members of the general public, it might be comforting to hear this, but it's a completely different situation when it comes to the survivors and loved ones of the victims. When the consequence for multiple heinous murders ends up being exactly the same as what it would have been for just one murder, those additional murders effectively become freebies. To those on the victim's side, it devalues the multiple lives that were lost. And there's more. Even if the chance of the offender being released as soon as they're eligible

for parole is extremely low, what it does mean is that one day, much sooner than they expected, each of these families will need to prepare for a parole hearing that they thought they would never have to face. We know that for those on the victim's side, parole hearings are extremely stressful and emotionally taxing events. And while they aren't required to attend their hearings, it's not like they can say no, because often all that's left of their loved ones are opportunities to advocate for them. So they show up each time unpacking their trauma so they can provide fresh victim impact statements. It's a thankless and helpless task. and a justice system that exists for the criminal, never the victim.

And according to the Globe and Mail, there are a total of 23 people who committed multiple murders and received consecutive parole in eligibility periods. We may hear appeals from Dallin Mollard and Mark Smitch, who were convicted of the murders of Tim Bosma and Laura Babcock. Dallin Mollard was also convicted separately of the murder of his own father, Wayne Millard. He was given a parole ineligibility period of 75 years, which means he wouldn't have been eligible to apply until he's 103 years old. His accomplice, Mark Smitch, was given a 50-year parole eligibility date. Both offenders could potentially use the Supreme Court ruling to have

their parole ineligibility periods reduced to 25 years. Linda Babcock, the mother of 23-year-old Laura Babcock, choked up as she told the Canadian press that to their family, the decision means that every life does not matter. Quote, our life has been destroyed by their crime, and yet the courts feel that it is cruel to keep them in prison for life. Why do the victims have less rights than the criminals? She suggested the Supreme Court was out of touch with victims and their families. These judges don't understand the pain we go through every single day for our lifetime, and yet they give criminals some leniency, not wanting them to suffer too much. We suffer horribly every single day.

There are obviously many more cases that could potentially be affected by this ruling, but it should be noted that the option for consecutive sentences was only written into the Canadian Criminal Code in 2011, so any cases sentence before that don't apply. For example, Paul Bonato and Robert Picton. But it does affect several other high-profile cases covered on this podcast. A very early episode featured Douglas Garland, who plotted to murder his old business partner, Elvin Lickness and his wife Kathy out of jealousy. When he showed up to their home and realized their five-year-old grandson Nathan was sleeping over that night, he made a spur of the moment decision to take him out as well.

Garland had been given a 75-year parole ineligibility period, which meant he would be 129 years old when he can apply for parole. There has been no announcement about whether he will apply unalgebrae. under this new Supreme Court decision. But if it ends up happening, he could be released when he's 79. And there's also Basil Brutzky, the perpetrator of the Renfrew County murders, which we covered in episode 74. For the separate spree murders of Anastasia Cusick, Natalie Warmadam and Carol Colettin,

his former intimate partners, he was given a 70-year parole ineligibility period, which means he'll be 128 years old when he can first apply. Again, it's not known if he will ask to have it reduced, but that's also not the only update on that particular case, so stay tuned for later in these major case updates. The Beetle Bandit This was the unbelievable but true story of the Toronto bank robber from the 1960s who wore that bizarre-looking beetlewig and mark,

as a disguise. Our two-part podcast series had been adapted by Toronto true crime author Nate Henley, based on his newest action-packed book of the same name, The Beetle Bandit. I mentioned in the series that after I read his script, I had to read the whole book and I found it to be an excellent work of research, journalism and storytelling, one of Nate's best yet. True Crime Index reviewed the Beatle Bandit and stated it was, quote, a must read for anyone looking for contentious and responsible true crime. And not surprisingly, the book has gone on to be recognized with multiple awards. The Beatle Bandit won a 22 Crime Writers of Canada Award of Excellence for Best Non-Fiction Crime Book, quite an accolade. It has also been nominated for the 2022 Heritage Toronto Book

Book Awards. The winner hasn't been announced, but we're certainly crossing our fingers that Nate will take this one out as well. The Beatle Bandit by Nate Henley is published by Dundern Press and is available on Kindle, audiobook and paperback. It's an amazing snapshot of Toronto history. The Murder of Laura Letts. Laura Letts was the beloved school teacher who went on an adventure to New Zealand and met a new love interest there, Peter Beckett, a quirky and charismatic character who eventually moved to Canada to marry her. But their friends described the relationship as Rocky. And in 2010, the couple were on vacation in British Columbia in their luxury motor home. They were out for an evening boat ride when Laura fell from the boat. She couldn't swim and Peter insisted he tried to save her, but he described

himself as being too buoyant to get to the bottom of the lake. He was a big guy, so he said he grabbed a rock to weigh him down and tried again. His efforts were unsuccessful and his wife Laura drowned. There were no witnesses and no physical evidence linking him to Laura's death, just odd circumstances, and Peter's strange behaviour both before and after, first claiming she fell out of the boat, and then changing his story in prison, telling a cellmate that she died by suicide. He also allegedly tried to get that cellmate to murder witnesses so they couldn't testify against him. Prosecutors alleged he killed Laura out of greed to cash in on her life insurance payments and her teacher's pension, and 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 Hucker and making all kinds of outlandish claims. The second trial resulted in a first-degree murder conviction, which he appealed and the guilty verdict was overturned. The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, and in June of 2021, the Crown stayed proceedings, and 64-year-old Peter Beckett was released after serving nine years in prison. As of last year, I reported that it wasn't known what had happened to him,

whether he'd returned to New Zealand or if he was still in Canada. Well, there's since been an update. In December of last year, Global News reported that Peter Beckett was back in court, trying to get that luxury motorhome back. It appears that in 2012, while he was in prison, he had arranged with the defendant, a man named Brian Graham to have it put in storage. Peter's claim was that they agreed it would be stored at no cost, but in 2016 he discovered that it had been sold right out from under him for $17,000 to offset

storage charges. Peter Beckett stated that the motor home itself was worth up to $200,000. The sale was fraudulent and he complained that the defendant refused to give deep. about who purchased it or where it might be. He asked for an order directing the Motorhome B returned to him and that he be reimbursed for his expense. He's also seeking an additional $200,000 for loss and damages. After that, Global News published details from the defendant, Brian Graham's very brief statement.

According to Graham, Peter Beckett initially made payments towards storage costs. The motorhome was legally sold two years later and Peter Beckett was notified of the sale at that time. This is all the information that was given. To me, it seems odd that a person running a storage facility would offer to store a luxury motorhome indefinitely at no cost. So reading between the lines, the most likely scenario here is that Peter Beckett was paying the cost to keep the motor home in storage, but he defaulted on payments. By law, after a certain period of time has elapsed, a storage facility can rightfully sell any stored items to offset the storage costs. The matter hasn't been heard in court yet, but whoever purchased that motorhome obviously

got one hell of a deal. The death of Darcy Allen Shepard. I don't believe this case needs any introduction because it was recent and it's been the most polarizing case I've ever covered. But for those who need a very simplified and carefully worded refresher, one 2009 night on a busy Toronto street there was a violent confrontation between Darcy Allen Shepard, a bike messenger, and Michael Bryant, the former Attorney General of Ontario who was driving a convertible. The end result was that Darcy died of his injuries at the scene, and Michael Bryant was charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. The charges were dropped after a special independent prosecutor

brought in from out-of-state to avoid a conflict of interest, decided there was little chance of a conviction. But this evidence that the special prosecutor referred to was not released publicly, and the decision left many with questions. So in the years that followed, Darcy's family and supporters applied for case documents under freedom of information, and the documents they received told a different story to the one heard in court the day it was announced the charges were dropped. To those who engaged with the series, I wanted to thank you for listening and thanks also for your kind messages and words of support. Quite a few people said they appreciated how detailed and in-depth it was, and I also heard that it challenged perceptions

of the case that had been influenced by media coverage at the time. Some people told me that when they listened to the series, they realized that there was so much more than meets the eye. The comment section was lit, and I am aware that some listeners may not have finished the series or liked it. It's certainly not the typical story that True Crime Podcasts tend to focus on, but we all know that not all cases are for everyone. I also don't, or should I say can't, run this podcast as a content farm.

It's still very much my passion project, and every case that I cover is chosen for a reason. So, as those who listened to the whole Darcy Ellen Shepard series know, I started to receive some complaints that I was biased in my coverage of the case. Personally, I had no doubts in that area, but as an introspective person, my first thought was not to dismiss but to double check. So I researched the definitions of bias in research and academia and in storytelling, and then I reviewed my work so far through that lens to make sure there wasn't anything I missed. At the start of part five of the series, I explained that bias in storytelling is when facts are cherry-picked

to portray a certain narrative, and those that don't support that narrative are omitted. This often happens when a person goes into a story with a preconceived conclusion in mind. I was reminded of the making a murderer documentary from a few years back, about the murder of Teresa Holbach. Now, this documentary was presented in such a compelling way that it left viewers, including me, feeling that a great miscarriage of justice had occurred, and Stephen Avery and Brendan Dassey must have been framed and therefore wronged. convicted. Since then, the documentary has become quite controversial, with criticisms that the documentary makers were pro-Steven Avery and went into the project with the wrongful conviction narrative

in mind, omitting facts that were incriminating to Stephen Avery. I have to note that obviously the situation is different when it comes to Brendan Dassey. So if we go back to the Darcy Allen Shepherd series, I reviewed everything. There was no cherry-picking or omitting of facts. In fact, I went completely overboard, laying out all the facts painstakingly, repeatedly, making sure I use precise language and the correct choice of words. And believe me, it wasn't because I didn't want to be accused of bias by listeners. I did it that way because I didn't want any actual threat of legal action by involved parties. When you're effectively criticizing the elite legal establishment, there is an element of risk there.

So in my efforts to not leave anything out, some listeners complained that the series went too far in depth and that it was too long and repetitive. On this one, I do agree. When looking back in hindsight, I can see that there are definite opportunities to cut things down. As part of the feedback about bias, some people told me that they will respect me more if I just own up to my opinions and stop saying that I'm neutral. They tell me that they like my old stuff better than my new stuff, Ozzy's I'm showing my age with that one. And they threaten to unsubscribe if this becomes a trend. Here's the thing. I've never said that I'm neutral. I said it would be fair and balanced. And I do give contextualizing comments as part of this podcast. Otherwise,

it would just be rehashing of stories that have already been told. I don't cherry pick or omit evidence or facts, but I do try to contextualize things. And I've realized that in some people's eyes, those comments amount to bias. And it's clear that there's no changing their minds. But I've always made comments like this. They are certainly nothing new for this podcast. And you can see that in cases I've covered like Ezekiel Stephan, Richard Olland, Karen and Krista Hart, the Marathorpe tragedy and all the cases involving Mr. Big Stings that

had ethical problems. I also did it in cases like Miranda Peters and the Saskatoon freezing deaths to name just a few. I've realised that at the end of the day, it's not my contextualising comments that some people have a problem with. It's just that they don't agree with some of them. And I understand that I'm not for everyone. And this podcast is not for everyone. And this podcast is not for everyone. And that's okay. So when it comes to the accusations of bias, I explained all this in part five of the series and asked people if they want to continue to complain about bias, please come at me with specific examples, not just that I sounded biased. So after the series was finished, I waited to see what anyone might say. And I actually did receive some fairly tersely worded legal criticism from some

lawyers not related to the case, and I will admit that I was nervous at first. But when I looked in to each point that they made, it ended up reading to me as a defense of the legal establishment and the fact that I dared to criticize it. One lawyer told me that the special independent prosecutor deserved respect, and quote, for you to question his integrity and imply he was somehow letting off a fellow lawyer was shocking and appalling. got to tell you, I'm a nobody, an indie true crime podcaster with a basic business degree, who records in her basement and prefers to keep a low profile otherwise. So it's kind of funny to hear lawyers so outraged that they message me to complain that I would dare critique one of their own.

I'm also not someone who ever supports the status quo or keeping things the way that they are. So no matter what background or qualifications a person has, regardless of whether there are a celebrity or of being carefully selected by the government to do a particular task, no person is entitled to blanket trust and respect in perpetuity. To remain in good standing, I believe that they need to continue to demonstrate through their words and actions that the trust is still earned. And if not, then they must expect an impact to their trustworthiness and credibility. I have more to say about that in a minute. But first, the most solid legal criticisms I received was that I didn't overtly state that it was Michael Bryant's absolute right to not give a statement. And I also

didn't overtly state that it is his absolute right to view the disclosure or the evidence against him. These are legitimate critiques and something that I should have stated, and I have made a correction note. But I also have something to say about this. I feel that out of the totality of all the information that I presented, these are very niche things to focus on and they actually misrepresent the points that I did make. Another lawyer told me, quote, I find it troubling that you would hold it against the accused to simply exercise his right to remain silent. Now, I explain this many times during the episode, i.e. repetition. But the problem wasn't that Michael Bryant was able to view the disclosure or the evidence against him, and it wasn't that he chose to remain silent

at first. It's the combination of these and more factors. The coin has two sides. Absolutely, an accused has the right to stay silent, and they have the right to change their mind and give an unsworn statement in a without-prejudice interview seven months after the incident, after they'd seen the evidence. They do have all those rights. But what they don't have is the right to expect their credibility will not be called into question. Regardless of the right to silence or disclosure, the longer a person waits to give a statement, the less credible they appear, and we the public have a right to question that credibility, whoever the statement comes from.

Someone else who appears to be from the legal community sent me a few additional points of complaint. They said that I repeatedly say in the version of events presented in court that day by the special prosecutor and supported by the defense could not be considered fact because they were never tested in court. The listener pointed out that while this is true,

no other witness statements were tested in court either, nor was the collision reconstruction report. My response to that complaint is this. I did state multiple times throughout the series that none of the evidence has been tested in court, including all the eyewitness statements and the collision reconstruction report, multiple times. And that was my point. None of it had been tested in court, yet only some of it was presented that day. This person goes on to complain that I also failed to mention the problems with eyewitness testimony, how it's notoriously unreliable at best.

But again, I did speak about all of this in part three of the series. I quoted studies that show eyewitnesses can provide very compelling legal testimony, but caution should be used because people don't remember experiences perfectly. I stated that their memories are susceptible to a variety of errors in by They can make mistakes and remembering specific details and can even remember whole events that did not actually happen. I also stated that mistaken eyewitness evidence can lead to wrongful conviction, so it needs to be used with caution. In that context, the person and several others also complained that I relied too much on the eyewitness statements given by Steve and Victoria and all the other eyewitnesses mentioned in the Collision Reconstruction Report.

My response to that complaint is that in the case of Darcy Allen Shepard, the whole sequence of events took less than 30 seconds, but it was over a stretch of 100 metres, so there was a lot of action and detail for witnesses to observe in a short period of time. As I said several times during the series, while there were differences and things that these 19 eye-es, witnesses said they saw. A comparison of the details they provided reveals commonalities and areas of overlap, things that multiple people said they saw. And I stated that it's not confirmation

that it's the absolute impartial truth, but it's certainly a much better indication than perhaps just one person's recollection might be. Another complaint was that while I pointed out that process followed in the case was not usual. I failed to mention some other processes that were also unusual. For example, Michael Bryant being arrested without a warrant is the exception, not the rule, and his release without a bail hearing is at the police's discretion. It is not unusual at all. But again, this is a mischaracterization. I did not point out that the process was unusual. I said that media outlets reported that Bryant was given preferential treatment by the police, because he had a suit delivered, was able to take a shower, and because he was released the next day before he'd had

a bail hearing. Now, if I did come into this story with some biased agenda, it would have been very easy for me to leave listeners with the impression that Michael Bryant did receive preferential treatment. But I didn't. I went on to provide the counter-arguments. to each part of that criticism, that Michael was entitled to have a suit delivered, and that like anyone else in a similar situation, he had the opportunity to use the washroom before leaving for whatever purpose he wanted. I reported the statements of clarification from Toronto Police, who said his treatment was not preferential, and that it wasn't that unusual for the accused

in similar cases to avoid a bail hearing and do fingerprinting and mugshots at a later date. I pointed out that Michael Bryant actually spent more time in a cell than the average person because of his high profile. Another lawyer took issue with the fact that I mentioned the case should have gone to a judge and jury, where the evidence would have been tested and the proceedings would have been more transparent. Their perception was that I believed an open trial process is the only solution to ensure a correct assessment of the facts and to get justice. They wanted to let me know that juries make mistakes all the time and assured me that the special prosecutor surely has a better understanding of the complexities and needs to be given the benefit of the doubt.

My response to this is the same thing I said in the podcast. I don't know what justice would be in this case, but what I do know is that with a trial, the process would have been fuller and far more transparent. The Shepard family would have been able to see this. the exhibits admitted into evidence, that eyewitnesses were cross-examined appropriately, and that all appropriate checks and balances were present. Instead, they were left with many questions. So when it comes to giving the special prosecutor the benefit of the doubt, I wanted to point out again that a prosecutor is not required to give reasons for withdrawing charges. So why did this one decide to do just that?

I spoke about the fact that just a few weeks after Darcy's death, a politician from Alberta named Rahim Jaffa had been stopped by police north of Toronto and was later charged with drunk driving, cocaine possession and speeding charges. But when those charges were withdrawn with no reason given, which of course is typical, there was public backlash. Now Michael Bryant's hearing was just two months after that, So imagine the outcry if a second, more high-profile politicians driving charges in the greater Toronto area were also withdrawn with no reason given.

The special independent prosecutor appointed by the government made a choice to explain why the charges were withdrawn. He didn't have to. And as I said, the public prosecution guidelines state that they have a key duty to be fair and to maintain public confidence in prosecutorial fairness, not just confidence from fellow legal professionals. The guidelines state that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. So my opinion as a Canadian citizen and member of the general public is that if he is unable to explain his decision in a way that visibly aligns with the guiding principles of the Crown Prosecution Service, if he expresses personal opinion,

on the evidence and states things as fact when they are not proven or tested, then he must face the natural consequences of that. So that's really all I've received when it comes to legal criticism. There were a few other complaints. One listener said they were so frustrated that so little attention was given to the Scopolidi evidence, which is those six incidents that the special prosecutor presented as evidence of Darcy Ellen Shepard intimidating and harassing. other drivers. The listener wanted to know why I didn't go into each incident in more detail

like I did with some of the other points. Well, the reason is that there were no other details to go into, because unlike the Collision Reconstruction report, that evidence was never released publicly. We don't even know what their real names are. So the only information on those incidents is what was presented in court that day. And I did not leave a statement. single detail out of my episodes. Darcy was only positively identified in one of the incidents where he was photographed clinging onto the side of a BMW after complaining that the vehicle had cut him off. An office worker took photos of the incident and the day after the hearing, those photos were published in the Toronto Star, along with more details about that particular incident because

the journalist spoke to the driver of the BMW. Again, I included every single detail they published, including the comment from the BMW driver who said Darcy was, quote, acting aggressively, insanely, sociopathically so. Now, it's been pointed out to me that this somehow proves that he did the same thing to Michael Bryant that night. I'm told that Bryant must have been terrified to have a wild man suddenly clinging to the side of his car, and I'm sure he was. But, We can't forget that even in Bryant's own version of the story, Darcy only latched onto the car after it accelerated into him, carrying him forward two car lengths on the hood, dumping him on the road,

crumpling his bike underneath, and then reversing to drive away. It's only then that Darcy got up and ran after the car. So that brings us to the end of my response to the Darcy Allen Shepard feedback. Yes, I also made an embarrassing mistake in pronouncing a Jewish word, which I'm not going to repeat right now. Apologies to all Jewish people. As I said earlier, I don't know what I don't know. But the reason I described the series as polarizing was because there was also lots of really great feedback. And I wanted to paraphrase a really thoughtful comment left by a listener on the Darcy Allen Shepard page of our website, because the sentiment was expressed so eloquently.

The listener wrote that we don't have to like Darcy Allen Shepard to sympathize with his heartbreaking childhood or to know that he was beloved. The fact that he was also a train wreck has very little to do with the legal dimension of his fateful encounter with Michael Bryant and everything to do with putting Darcy on the spot in his condition with a temperament that tragically escalated events.

And we also don't have to like Marcy. Michael Bryant to acknowledge how he was also beloved, admired, accomplished and connected. And like Darcy, those facts also had very little to do with the legal dimension of their collision that night, but those facts are also absolutely pivotal to due process. Quote, what makes it all so compelling and confounding is both personalities have become proxies, symbols of the asymmetries in play, elites against plebs, cars against, bicycles, wealth and privilege against poverty and crime. The listener goes on to say that the law does not exist to reconcile these disparities. It's meant to dispense justice as the system has

codified it. And the same justice system can also be perverted to serve people with means, power and connections much more favorably. But in this case, it really served no one, including us. The listener goes on to write that the best and most imperfect instrument for that purpose is trial by jury in an open court, but that will never happen. Michael Bryant could have put his version of events before peers and had it tested under oath. He refused, which is his right. But even though legally he's been vindicated, the court of public opinion has imposed its own sentence, quote, a thwarted political career, and attaching a stench to the man that no self-authored book can quite dispel. Still, Michael Bryant continues to have the

last word over and over and over again. The listener ends their comment by stating that Darcy's children deserve an honest and fair account of what happened to their dad, warts and all, and it should be a matter of public record. Quote, may it help them understand a father who will be forever beyond them, and also Noah. peace that so alluded him. I think this listener really got to the crux of the issue. Many critics have assumed that I was somehow arguing that Michael Bryant got away with murder and should be sent to prison, but it's not even really about Michael Bryant. It's about the justice system, a system that's supposed to be set up to allow transparency and accountability

and due process. Whatever justice is in this case, it was definitely not seen. to be done. And that's my point. That's where we'll leave it for part one. Thanks for listening and special thanks to end your best for researching these case updates. Part two will be available in 24 hours and for those listening on our premium feeds on Apple Podcasts, Patreon or Supercast, it's available ad-free right now. Please see the show notes for the full list of resources and links for further information on any of these cases. If you want to know more about the podcast, including how to access ad-free episodes on our premium feeds, visit Canadian Truecrime.ca.com.

As always, thank you so much for your kind ratings, reviews, messages and support. Thanks also to the host of True for voicing the disclaimer, and We Talk of Dreams who compose the theme song. I'll see you in 24 hours for Part 2.