Canadian True Crime - The Death of Darcy Allan Sheppard [3]

Episode Date: June 8, 2022

[Part 3 of 6] In this episode, the Collision Reconstruction experts determine what happened in the incident that led to Darcy's death, Michael Bryant finally reveals his side of the story, and more.Look 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. This is part three of a multi-part series. Where we left off, it had been a week since the incident on Bloor Street, Toronto, that left bike messenger Darcy Allen Shepard dead, and the future of former Attorney General of Ontario Michael Bryant shrouded in uncertainty. Michael Bryant had been charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death and then released the next day. Neither he nor his wife, who was his passenger in the car, provided a statement to police giving their version of events, but he promised the press that he would give a full statement later.

The following day, he announced his resignation as president and CEO of Invest Toronto, the position he'd left politics for only months earlier, and as part of that statement, he declared he was innocent of the charges. He had by this point put a team together that included criminal defence lawyer Marie Hannan as well as Navigator, a Toronto Crisis Management PR firm. Michael Bryant would later write in his memoir 28 seconds

that they all agreed that going to trial was the last thing they wanted, and they designed a strategy to achieve that result. The first day or two after Darcy's death, the media focused on finding out who the cyclist was and speculating on what the future might hold for Michael Bryant. But as the days progressed, the media's focus shifted away from Michael Bryant's reputation and onto Darcy Allen Shepherds,

as all the grim details of his past were paraded before the public. And then a new story was planted in the media that Darcy may have been trying to grab the steering wheel of Michael Bryant's car. This new narrative turned Darcy into an attempted carjacker, with Michael Bryant as the victim who was just trying to defend himself. The problem was the story was completely false. Not one witness mentioned anything about Darcy grabbing the steering wheel or anything that suggested there was a fight for control of Dakar. But when the media was reporting this planted story as fact, the eyewitness statements obviously weren't publicly available. And by the time the police stated the story did not originate from them, it was too late. The new narrative got far more

publicity than the truth did. But today we have the benefit of hindsight. In this episode, we'll be going through the full collision reconstruction report that includes detailed notes about all the relevant witness statements. There is a story about how these files and reports related to this investigation were eventually released to the public, but we'll get to that later. Michael Bryant's first court appearance after being released from his short stay in prison was on October 19th, seven weeks after the incident that caused Darcy Elgin. and Shepard's death. He didn't appear, but was represented by his lawyer, Marie Hennon,

who declined to speak about the case to the press only to say that they were apparently anxious to proceed to trial as soon as reasonably possible. This statement is not consistent with what Michael Bryant would write in his later memoir, which was that their strategy was always to avoid trial. In any event, another court date was set for the next month. Darcy had loved ones show up to the courthouse to make sure that he was not forgotten in all the proceedings. Toronto cyclist Anthony Darcy told Maria Babbage for the Globe and Mail that he was frustrated because he felt Michael Bryant had an advantage because he was able to afford to hire the likes

of navigator and a very well-paid defense lawyer. Quote, There's sort of a rich man, poor man thing going on. That's not something. that a poor man is obviously going to be able to do. At the end of that month, a Globe and Mail piece was published titled How to Defend Michael Bryant, where author Kirk Macon asks a question, will a judge or jury subconsciously favour a charismatic politician over a grubby bike courier?

This question set the tone for the rest of the piece, which quoted several criminal defence lawyers with their perspectives on what Michael Bryant's defense might look like. One lawyer suspected the key thing was going to be what Darcy, the cyclist, said or did in those few seconds, because if it was something that could justify what happened, then Michael Bryant, the driver, could be almost home free. Another defense lawyer gave the opinion that the Crown risks being seen as needlessly promoting an innocent man and would need to prove that Michael Bryant displayed disproportionate force and extreme road rage.

And when it came to the defense, Michael Bryant's team would need to show that he was in mortal fear for his life. And a third criminal lawyer noted that because Michael is a public figure, the defense may emphasize that he had heightened concerns about public safety, especially in light of the fact that he had the top down on the convertible that night. quote, you have a guy in a rage hanging onto your car and possibly your steering wheel. You have approximately zero seconds to figure out what you are going to do. If you're in a car and somebody hangs on to you, the only way to run away is to push the pedal, which you do automatically because it's as natural as breathing.

It's tragic, but it is not a crime. At the end of the piece, one of the lawyers stated that the former Attorney General is someone who would learn nothing from a stint in jail. Quote, even in the worst interpretation, he overreacted in a situation with his wife in the car. There was nothing deliberate, no criminal intent, and he is never going to commit another crime in his life.

Why would you have to put a guy like that in jail? End quote. These statements appear overly generous and forgiving towards Michael Bryant, giving him the clear benefit of the doubt. Rather than impartial speculation on what his defence might look like, in their professional opinion, these criminal defence lawyers went even further, describing him as an innocent man and his reaction as,

nothing deliberate, no criminal intent, as natural as breathing, and tragic, but it is not a crime. Now, there was no way that they had all the facts of the case at the time, But it's important to remember that these criminal defence lawyers were effectively Michael Bryant's peers in the legal profession. They moved in the same circles and swam in the same pool, a completely different pool to the one the so-called grubby bike messenger had been swimming in. Michael Bryant did not appear at the next court hearing either, and again, the case was put off for another month until December of 2009. His lawyer, Marie Hennon, was quoted by CTV news saying she was still waiting for disclosure documents from the Crown. The day before that court date, it was announced that Michael Bryant had a new job.

He had joined a top law firm in Toronto called Ogle v. Renaud as a senior advisor working with the energy law team. Partner John West told the press that the firm felt Mr Bryant was imminent. placed for the new position given his experience and that he was entitled to a presumption of innocence. Quote, he should not be treated to a lesser standard than anyone else would be. The case continued to proceed through the court system into the new year 2010. In the next hearing, the court heard that the Crown was going to be re-interviewing witnesses and conducting further forensic testing, so things would be delayed for a bit of bit longer. Behind the scenes, Toronto Police had two collision reconstruction experts going through all

the evidence to prepare a collision reconstruction report. The lead author on the report was Detective Constable J. Vance, but the list of names at the end of the report shows that more than 50 other officers contributed to it. In writing the report, these reconstructionists conducted a detailed scene investigation. They examined the Saab and the bicycle. They put together diagrams showing where the car was and where it ended up, where the construction in the middle of the road was. They reviewed the surveillance camera footage, all the witness statements given to police and compared it to the evidence found at the scene on the mailbox, on the fire hydrant and on the road. They compared samples of blood, fiber and paint. They reviewed weather conditions and did some speed and

distance calculations. This was a very comprehensive report. In determining what happened, the reconstructionists also took into account the autopsy report, which concluded that the cause of Darcy's death was blunt head impact trauma. The fatal injury was a large cut on the right side of Darcy's head that caused fatal brainstem damage. This unsurvivable head injury was result of Darcy being catapulted into the air and landing headfirst on the pavement. But he sustained other serious injuries before that, when he was clinging on to the driver's side of the Saab as Michael Bryant drove it on the wrong side of the road, with Darcy's body skimming the curb. When the left side of Darcy's body slammed into the mailbox and the fire hydrant,

it resulted in a substantial gaping tear in his left torso, as well as a significant cut to the left side of his head. There were also large scrapes all over his body. Toxicology results confirmed that Darcy had a blood alcohol level of 0.183, more than twice the legal limit to drive a vehicle. There was also cannabis present. When it came to the eyewitness statements, the police had gathered more than 25 accounts of what happened that fateful night. We don't have all of them, but we have most, 19 different accounts of what happened,

the accounts that were presumably deemed relevant to include in the Collision Reconstruction Report. It wouldn't be released until a few years later, but it includes pages and pages of summarized accounts of what the eyewitnesses said. they saw. You've already heard the audio statements for five of them, Steve and Victoria, who were standing at the lights, the parking garage guy and the two construction workers, and we went over the commonalities in what they said. When widening the comparison to include all 19 accounts in the Collision Reconstruction Report, there are definite similarities, but also some differences. There's a few reasons for this. The three collisions that made up the incident took place in several locations along the road,

over a span of about 100 metres from the pedestrian crossing to the point where Darcy was dislodged from the car. Some witnesses saw the beginning, where the Saab lurched forward onto the bike twice. Some saw the car driving on the wrong side of the road. Others were in a position where they could also see Darcy hanging on, and some saw the final collision when Darcy crashed headfirst on the road. And even in areas where witnesses saw the same part of the incident, they were often viewing it from different vantage points. Another issue is perception when it comes to individual recollections.

Studies show that eyewitnesses can provide very compelling legal testimony, but caution should be used because people don't remember experiences perfectly. their memories are susceptible to a variety of errors and biases. They can make mistakes in remembering specific details and can even remember whole events that did not actually happen. The reason why caution should be used is that mistaken eyewitness evidence can lead to wrongful conviction. And in this case, the whole sequence of events took less than 30 seconds,

over a stretch of 100 meters, so there was a lot of action. and detail for witnesses to observe in a short period of time. Fortunately, while there were differences in things these 19 witnesses said they saw, a comparison of the details they provided reveals commonalities and areas of overlap, things that multiple people said they saw. 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. The key witnesses who saw the initial collision where the Saab bumped into Darcy's bike, twice, reported slightly different details, but there are clear commonalities. As you remember, Stephen Victoria saw Darcy on his bike, facing forward, and behind him was the Saab driven by Michael Bryant. There was clearly some kind of road rage altercation happening as they were waiting at the lights, but the... they heard no arguing or shouting.

Once the lights had turned green, instead of biking off straight away which any driver no doubt would have preferred, Steve reported seeing Darcy give a smile to the driver that he perceived as provocative, while Victoria heard him say, You want me to move now? They both said they saw the car move into the back of the bike the first time,

causing Darcy to lose his balance. At this point, Victoria said she, yelled at the driver to stop it. They reported that next, the Saab suddenly accelerated into Darcy and his bike a second time, much faster than before, projecting him onto the hood of the car and over onto the driver's side of the road. Two eyewitnesses reported that the cyclist got up and the car backed up and ran right into him again, and the cyclist went onto the hood. One witness said they thought Darcy jumped onto the hood.

Another said he slammed his hands down on the hood. And a few witnesses said they thought he threw his messenger bag or bike at or onto the hood of the car at some point during this sequence of events. Now, as you'll remember from part one, as Darcy was on the road, the parking garage witness heard him say to those nearby, you're all witnesses to this. While Steve and Victoria didn't report hearing this, two other eyewitnesses included it in their statements, one of whom reported that Darcy was gesturing at the Saab as he did this. Now we're at the point where Michael Bryant is reversing the Saab

so he can maneuver around Darcy and his bike, with the intention to drive off. And as this is happening, Darcy starts to get up off. the pavement. Both Steve and Victoria described this as, quote, the cyclist ran after the car. Another witness described it as, quote, cyclist approached car aggressively before the vehicle accelerates rapidly west in eastbound lanes. Now, as we've mentioned, Victoria said she saw Darcy throw his messenger bag or knapsack and it landed at her feet. The collision reconstruction report states that she saw him throw it onto the car.

She would clarify to Jennifer Wells of the Toronto Star that rather than trying to hit the car, it seemed to her that Darcy just wanted to unburden himself of the backpack. What you've just heard are the only eyewitness accounts that suggest Darcy was aggressive in any way during this entire incident. The Collision Reconstruction Report includes more, details from the eyewitness who we know to be Victoria. As the Saab was speeding off with Darcy clinging to the side, Victoria picked up the knapsack which had landed at her feet as well as

Darcy's crumpled bike, or she tried to. Quote, someone helped me with the knapsack as the back wheel was not working on the bicycle. The police had managed to get some tapes of surveillance footage from a long Bloor Street, but it doesn't give a clear view of the action after Darcy starts to get up from the pavement at that point. What we do know is that the forensic analysis of the car found blood marks on the bumper, grill, hood, windshield, sideview mirror and driver's door armrest, showing where Darcy's cut-up hands came in contact with the car. One witness described Darcy sliding down the side of the vehicle as, He held on to the left rearview mirror.

Another saw his chest pushed up against the car. Another stated that Darcy did not grab onto the car's steering wheel. Multiple witnesses reported the car speeding up. Descriptions they gave included rapidly accelerating, a high rate of speed. The car sped away really fast and flawed it. Another witness said the driver was trying to get away as Darcy's. Darcy held onto the car, being dragged by it. Victoria said that it did not appear that Darcy wanted to attack the driver, rather he didn't want the driver to leave the scene.

Multiple witnesses said they saw a person hanging off the side of a convertible car that was moving fast, on the wrong side of the road, skirting the curb. Darcy was described as hanging on so he would not fall. Two witnesses saw sparks coming from his shoes as his feet dragged on the ground. Now when it came to the way Michael was driving the Saab as Darcy was hanging on to the side, several witnesses said they saw the vehicle swerving left and right, moving in and out, stopping and starting, driving close to the curb, breaking back and forth trying to get the cyclist off while he was holding on for dear life.

Another said, quote, I can't believe the guy didn't stop to let him off. I would be shit scared to get off at that speed. This witness described Darcy's body bouncing off the car and the curb objects and the car itself bouncing like it ran over Darcy. While it would be determined that the car did not run over Darcy, this could explain why this witness thought that it did. Another witness commented that Darcy couldn't have let go at that.

speed. His legs were starting to swing out. They weren't touching the ground. Other witnesses described it as the driver trying to dislodge Darcy from his grip on the car, the car swerving, trying to shake off the cyclist, the convertible driving onto the sidewalk, half on, half off the road with a man hanging off the side of the car, hitting trees in a mailbox, attempting to get the guy off the car. While Michael Bryant was driving the car, close to the curb, it should be noted that the collision reconstruction experts couldn't locate any definitive curb strikes or evidence of the car mounting the curb or the sidewalk. One witness heard the loud impact of Darcy hitting the objects as the car drove past. Another said they

saw Darcy hit the fire hydrant. At least three witnesses were asked whether they thought the car was out of control and none of them did. One added that, in their opinion, no one could say it was an accident. Another witness, one of the construction workers, said at first he thought the driver was drunk and wasn't able to navigate around the construction, noting that the crew had been there for three days with no issue. This witness wasn't at a vantage point to see Darcy clinging to the car, but stated that the car was in full control as it went into the curb, quote, just enough to squeeze the guy off.

When it came to that final part of the incident where Darcy collided with the fire hydrant, one eyewitness said, quote, saw the pool of blood after the guy was knocked off and bounced off the pavement like a beach ball. It made me sick. Another described it as, heard a loud thud. The victim hit an object and I looked out of the van and saw the victim laying face down on the road. This witness added that they believed the driver to be definitely in control of the car.

Another witness said he looked up and saw a guy in the air and hit the road, with a car speeding up to go around it. This witness said they initially thought it was a hit and run. In fact, when the totality of these eyewitness statements are taken into consideration, they overwhelmingly viewed Michael Bryant as the primary. aggressor in the situation. One witness said they were apprehensive about giving a statement because they, quote, didn't know how much money or how powerful this guy was. The only comments that suggested Darcy was aggressive in any way are from just a few witnesses. Steve and Victoria essentially perceived him to be passive aggressive at the lights while he was straddling his bike in front

of the Saab facing forward the whole time. And the only behaviour reported by other witnesses that could be considered aggressive was after Darcy had been hit the second time by the Saab, that hit that projected him onto the hood and over onto the pavement. And the only evidence of this aggression was hitting the hood of the car with his hands, or throwing a bag or bike onto the car, which we know didn't happen, or the very vaguely worded, approached car aggressively. Out of the pages and pages that summarised the 19 eyewitness accounts included in the Collision Reconstruction Report, there is nothing else from eyewitnesses that mention anything about Darcy being aggressive.

The Collision Reconstructionists also reviewed the surveillance footage. As you'll remember, there were several cameras along Blore Street that picked up parts of the incident, and the experts viewed four different surveillance videos. The first two were the zoomed-in grainy footage that had already been released briefly by the media that shows the action happening in the corner of the frame. It shows the first part of the incident where the car accelerates into the bike twice, and then it cuts to the second camera, which shows Darcy falling over the hood. and onto the road on the driver's side. The camera shows Darcy in white,

flailing and scrambling to get up off the road, while Michael reverses the Saab to manoeuvre past him. From where the camera is, Darcy is now blocked by the Saab and it drives out of view of the camera, so that video had been released. The Reconstruction Report states a total of 13 seconds of video was not

recorded, the part where the Saab was driving on the wrong side of the road with Darcy hanging off the side. The third video showed the headlight, brake and tail lights of the car and what was described as a light-coloured smear, which was deemed likely to be Darcy. The fourth video caught the final part of the collision, capturing the area where Darcy's body slammed into the fire hydrant and other objects, and his final resting place after crashing to the road was within view of this camera. This footage has never been released. After taking into consideration all this evidence and more, the reconstruction experts determined that this is what happened. The Saab operated by Michael Bryant stopped at a red light for a pedestrian crosswalk, and the bicycle operated by Darcy Allen

Shepard was traveling in the same direction when it abruptly turned in front of the Saab and stopped just as the traffic light turned green. Michael Bryant struck Darcy Ellen Shepard not once but twice from a stopped position. The first was after Darcy stopped his bike in front of the Saab, when Michael accelerated the Saab into the rear of the bike, knocking it over and jostling Darcy. After Darcy righted his bike came the second collision. The report read, quote, Mr Bryant rapidly accelerated the Saab again into the stopped cyclist. Mr. Shepherd was struck, carried on the hood of the car,

and thrown to the ground from the force of the impact. It goes on to say, quote, As Mr Bryant then reversed and then accelerated rapidly around the bicycle that had been wedged under the Saab, Darcy got up, approached the vehicle as it accelerated, and grabbed onto the driver's side door. It is at this point in the collision report where it states that there was no evidence or eyewitness statements

suggesting Darcy affected the steering of the Saab or anything to suggest he physically attacked Mr. Bryant. After landing on the road, Darcy's hands contained a, a lot of cuts and the collision reconstructionists found samples of his blood were located in multiple areas on the Saab, including the hood and grill area. This is consistent with that witness who said he saw Darcy slam his hands on the hood of the Saab after getting off from the road. There was also DNA evidence of Darcy hanging on to the car. His blood was found near the driver's

door handle and on the interior windshield close to the driver's side, indicating his fingers slid across the glass as he tried to grip it. There was also blood found on the interior driver's side door above the armrest, but there was no blood on the steering wheel itself, nor the headrest. The Collision Reconstruction Report describes in detail that as Darcy was clinging on to the driver's side, his cut hand smearing blood inside and outside. outside the driver's side of the car, the Saab then crossed the road's center line and continued down the wrong side of the road, with Darcy's body hanging close to the curb. As Michael Bryant steered the car to enter the eastbound lane going the wrong way,

the reconstructionist determined that Darcy's leg struck a tree near the curb. There was an abrasion wound on his left ankle that was consistent with scrape marks on the bark of the tree. But the tree was measured to be almost a metre in from the curb, meaning that for Darcy's leg to have touched it, his legs must have been swinging out from the side of the car, which is consistent with what one of the witnesses said. Now, it should be noted that Darcy was not a small guy. He was six foot one and two hundred pounds,

so for his foot to have swung out and struck a tree that was almost a meter from the curb, there must have been significant gravitational forces at play. Elevated G-forces are caused by harsh driving, whether it be hard braking, swerving or hard acceleration maneuvers. So the G-forces that were needed to swing Darcy's leg so his foot hit the tree was a direct result of how the vehicle was being driven. The reconstruction report determined that the obstacle Darcy slammed into

that dislodged him from the car was the fire hydrant which tore a gaping hole in Darcy's torso. The redness that projected out from the tear was approximately the same size as the protruding cap on the hydrant, and additionally, fabric from Darcy's clothes was located on that hydrant cap. Two eyewitnesses reported seeing Darcy's body flying through the air, hitting a tree and a mailbox before crashing headfirst on the pavement. The reconstructionist determined Darcy landed 11.87 meters away from the fire hydrant. There was a smear of human tissue located on the road in between these two locations, and while there was no explanation provided for it in the report,

it could be an indicator that Darcy may have bounced on the road about two meters before the spot where he finally landed, which was consistent with what a witness reported. Regardless, the force needed to throw a man of Darcy's size up into the air so he lands 11 metres away after such a collision must have been substantial. It's not known exactly what speed the Saab was travelling, because there are so many variables. We know the car travelled up Bloor Street with Darcy holding on, but multiple ways. witnesses reported it swerving and braking, so it wasn't going the same speed the whole time. As well as commenting about how fast the car was going, several eyewitnesses gave a range

of estimates that it was travelling between 50 to 90 kilometres an hour. These are obviously quite high estimates, especially considering it was in a downtown Toronto Street. But perceptions of how fast a car is going can vary widely, depending on. ending on multiple factors. For example, if a person is watching a car drive pass that's in the process of acceleration, it can appear to be going faster than what it is. And additionally, a car that's pulling high revs in a low gear may have sounded like it was going faster than what it was. The reconstructionist did have some data points that they were able to use to calculate some speed estimates. They examined time-stamped surveillance footage from a Sephora store on Bloor Street

and were able to estimate how long it took the Saab to pass the front door, estimating it to be in the range of about 29 to 41 kilometres per hour, depending on how far away the car was from the curb. The report specified that the higher end of that range was the more probable reflection. But perhaps more importantly, the report specified that these data points outside the Sephora store were not at the point where Darcy was holding on. It was after he hit the fire hydrant and was determined to have dislodged from the Saab. It's impossible to determine if the Saab was still in the process of accelerating at that point or whether it had slowed down as a reaction to Darcy slamming into the fire hydrant.

But even if the speed of the Saab at various points along the road was able to be calculated with accuracy, its helpfulness to the case is debatable. It could be compared to the speed limit on Bloor Street, which was usually 50 kilometres per hour but reduced to 20 because of the construction. So the Saab was likely speeding at the time, but what does that tell us? Perhaps a more meaningful calculation is the possible impact speed as, Darcy hit the fire hydrant, the impact that tore a gaping hole in his torso, dislodged him from the car and flung him meters away.

The experts estimated that Darcy's body slammed into the fire hydrant at a minimum impact speed of between 33 to 41 kilometres per hour. These speed estimate calculations might be good to know information, but at the end of the day, it really does nothing to help us understand why Michael Bryant steered the car onto the wrong side of the road with a person clinging to the side of it in the first place. While one witness had mentioned that Darcy may have been run over by the Saab after he crashed to the pavement, the report determined that his injuries were not consistent with being run over. It was slamming into the fire hydrant

and then crashing into the pavement head first that caused the most serious of his injuries. The Reconstruction report detailed that after Darcy was dislodged from the car, Michael Bryant continued to drive the Saab down Bloor Street, turning north onto Avenue Road, pulling into the nearby Park Hyatt Hotel, and dialing 911 three minutes later. At the end of the report, there's a conclusion, a collection of sentences that state exactly what the reconstructionists believe happened at each stage of the incident.

as a result of their comprehensive examination of all the evidence. The report's conclusion starts off, quote, Mr Bryant and Mr. Shepherd shared responsibility in the death of Mr. Shepherd. The rest of the conclusion has been edited only slightly for time and clarity, but here is what the collision reconstruction experts determined happened in the death of Darcy Allen Shepard. Mr. Bryant struck Mr. Shepherd not. once but twice from a stopped position. The first collision occurred after Mr. Shepard stopped his bike in front of the Saab. Mr. Bryant accelerated the Saab from a stopped position into the rear of the

bicycle, knocking the bicycle over and jostling Mr. Shepard. The report states that the second collision occurred after Mr. Shepard righted his bicycle in front of Mr. Bryant. The Saab was stopped for two seconds. Mr Bryant rapidly accelerated the Saab again into the stopped cyclist. Mr. Shepard was struck, carried onto the hood of the car and thrown to the ground from the force of the impact. Mr. Bryant reversed his Saab and drove around the bicycle, which was on the ground with Mr. Shepard. So now Darcy is on the road, along with his crumpled bike, and as he sees Michael Bryant reversing the Saab and maneuvering past him, he gets. up. The report states, as Mr. Bryant tried to drive around Mr. Shepherd and the bicycle,

Mr. Shepherd approached the Saab and held on to the driver's side of the vehicle. Mr. Bryant accelerated rapidly in a southwesterly direction into oncoming traffic. There was no physical evidence or independent witness statements suggesting that Mr. Shepherd affected the steering of the Saab, or anything to suggest he physically attacked Mr Bryant. The report's conclusion states that Michael Bryant drove the Saab westbound in an eastbound lane, with Darcy Allen Shepard holding on to the driver's side of the vehicle, until his torso struck a fire hydrant and he landed on the pavement striking his head. Michael Bryant continued to drive the Saab westbound on Bloor Street, leaving Darcyl.

lying on the street dying of the injuries he sustained in the collision. Michael Bryant then turned north into Avenue Road and then pulled into the Park Hyatt Hotel, where he had a conversation with the concierge and then called the police. The final sentences of the collision reconstruction reports conclusion, state, quote, Mr Bryant's final actions in the third collision sequence led to the death of Mr. Shepard. Mr. Bryant's failure to stop the Saab when Mr. Shepard deliberately hung on to the side of the Saab and driving his vehicle on the opposite side of the road in an attempt to dislodge Mr.

Shepard from his vehicle gave the appearance of a deliberate act, according to witnesses. Mr. Shepard is also responsible for his actions that led up to the concluding incident. All of these incidents were unfortunate and avoidable. end quote so the question that remains here is who was the primary aggressor was it the man riding a bicycle the more vulnerable of the two who was clearly aware there was a car behind him with an impatient driver and instead of cycling off at the green light he stalled flashing a smile and uttering a passive aggressive comment at the driver or was it that impatient driver of the car so provoked vote that he accelerated his car into the bicycle twice, hitting the cyclist and sending him

over the hood and onto the road, and then reverse back to dislodge the crumpled bike caught under the front grill so he could drive away from the scene. Who was the primary aggressor in the incident that left Darcy Allen Shepard dead? At this point, no one knew what Michael Bryant's side of the story was. He didn't speak with investigators, and he never provided that full statement he promised to the media. And because Darcy Ellen Shepard was obviously unable to tell his side of the story, the case had been shrouded in mystery and speculation. But all that would change on May 25, 2010.

After a number of delays, a court proceeding was scheduled. This was going to be the big one. The items that had been holding things up had been resolved, and this court date would determine how the case would proceed to trial. In attendance was the counsel for the accused, Michael Bryant's lawyer, Marie Henan. When it came to Crown Counsel, there were two people listed on the docket. As you'll recall, Michael Bryant was the Attorney General of Ontario until two years before Darcy Allen Shepard's death,

a position that saw him appoint and oversee the work of many staff, crown prosecutors. But now he was the accused, and one of those same prosecutors could now very well be in charge of prosecuting him. A risky power dynamic and potential conflict of interest. So Richard Peck, a high-profile criminal defense lawyer, had been brought in from Vancouver, British Columbia, as Special Independent Prosecutor. As to why he had been chosen, Richard Peck had established a reputation for high ethical standards and professionalism. He was known for his command of the English language and choosing his words carefully, and he also happened to be in the Toronto area on the same night that Darcy Allen Shepard was killed.

Now, when it came to who would represent Peck locally, the lawyer who would be on the ground managing the Crown's case, doing the investigative legwork and legal analysis, interviewing witnesses, and making court appearances on behalf of the Crown, that lawyer was Mark Sandler, a name partner at Cooper, Sandler, Shime and Bergman, LLP, a criminal defence law firm based in Toronto. Mark Sandler was also experienced, highly regarded and well connected.

He was and is a member of several associations, including the Ontario Bar Association, the Criminal Lawyers Association, and the Toronto Lawyers Association, and he was also elected to the prestigious position of Bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada, the governing body of Ontario's legal profession that's now known as the Law Society of Ontario. So when it comes to the potential for a conflict of interest, did Mark Sandler know Michael Bryant? Absolutely. In fact, they served in prestigious roles as benches to the Law Society of Upper Canada at the same time. Michael Bryant's role

was part of his Attorney General appointment in 2003 and the next year Mark Sandler was elected to his first term as a bencher. During the three years they served in these roles, they worked together several times. For example, when Michael Bryant conducted that overhaul of Ontario's human rights system, Mark Sandler was serving as a part-time member of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. And in Michael Bryant's final year as Attorney General, he initiated the inquiry into pediatric forensic pathology in Ontario, which looked into the child autopsies performed by disgraced forensic pathologist Charles Smith. Three prominent lawyers were appointed Commission counsel for the proceedings, and Mark Sandler was one of them.

These are just two main examples that illustrate there were ties and connections between Michael Bryant and Mark Sandler before Darcy Allen Shepard's death, but they're not the only ones. And again, in this role, Richard Peck and Mark Sandler, two experienced criminal defense lawyers, would not be defending Michael Bryant, but prosecuting him independently. Michael Bryant would later write something interesting in his book, 28 seconds. Quote, I learned something about the criminal defence bar in Toronto. They stick together and work together to help each other,

even if they're not retained on the case. This doesn't apply to every lawyer, but amongst those who reciprocate, there is a small group of colleagues who advance the interests of the accused at large. He added that his lawyer, Marie Hennon, was able to consult with any number of senior criminal lawyers, quote, including a couple of my own supporters, who happened to be strong legal minds. Now, before we go into what took place at that court proceeding, I should point out that this is another one of those situations where I'm applying context in hindsight

with information that was not publicly available at the time. We have the transcript of the court proceeding. We have the Collision Reconstruction Report, the autopsy report, the toxicology report, the coroner's investigation statement. We have audio of Steve and Victoria's 911 calls, the audio of their statements, as well as those of three other eyewitnesses. All information that the media or general public did not have access to back then, including, of course, Darcy's loved ones. Let's examine what happened at that hearing and how it compares to the evidence we have. Special independent prosecutor Richard Peck did not beat around the bush,

stating up front that he was going to be asking that the information before the court, the charges laid against Michael Bryant, be withdrawn. He said that based on the information available to the police when they charged Michael Bryant, there were reasonable and probable ground. to lay charges, but since that date a great deal more has been learned from what Peck described as the ongoing investigation. He said that this ongoing investigation only ended a few weeks earlier. And because there was such widespread interest in the case, he told the court he was going to explain his decision, starting with Darcy Allen Shepard's story and finishing with the version

of events given by Michael Bryant, a version the public had not heard before. The special prosecutor Richard Peck started by thanking the defense team for providing the crown with very full disclosure of the case, describing it as a commendable occurrence in our adversarial system. The prosecutor wanted to emphasize that the decision he was about to present was his and his alone, and officials in the middle of the minister. Ministry of the Attorney General in Ontario had no input into the decision, an approach he said was consistent with the independence demanded of him. In presenting his decision, the prosecutor started by examining Darcy Allen Shepard's movements and his background, how Darcy showed up

intoxicated to Misty's apartment, how he slept for a period of time and decided to leave, how a neighbor reported a noise disturbance and the police showed up. The court heard that the resident who reported sounds coming from Misty's apartment, sounds of things being thrown around and screaming, mentioned something else in the call. Quote, this resident also advised that Mr. Shepherd had next been observed outside the apartment building, allegedly assaulting a homeless man, possibly with a bicycle lock.

The special prosecutor told the court that they have the police printouts of the phone calls. Now, this was the first time Darcy's loved ones and supporters had heard about this, and it should be noted that these police printouts have never been released publicly. What we do know is that when officers arrived at the scene, they heard nothing about a homeless man that had been attacked. No one else on the scene mentioned it either. Darcy then came across the Toronto police, who noted he was acting belligerently and had been drinking, but allowed him to proceed on his way, and it was not long after this that the altercation with Michael Bryant occurred.

Michael Bryant's version of the story would be coming soon, but before that, the special independent prosecutor gave a summary of Darcy's background and criminal record. the breaking and entering in 1996 and pleading guilty to assaulting his common law partner in 1997. The next conviction mentioned was 10 years after that in 2007, the bizarre incident where Darcy was working for an organised crime boss and threatened a taxi driver and two pedestrians with very real-looking replica toy guns, which he would serve seven months in prison for. The special prosecutor presented details from the Gladdu report that was prepared for Darcy's sentencing for the weapons offence. That's the report that detailed the unique circumstances and systemic issues that come into play with indigenous offenders.

For example, Darcy's childhood and experiences while in foster care. Richard Peck noted the fact that Darcy and his younger brother David bounced through more than 30 foster homes, describing it as staggering. He said he wouldn't reiterate the details of the maltreatment they suffered, describing them only as shocking. He also mentioned that Alan Shepard had also written a letter for the court to provide further details. Quote, what one learns from his father's correspondence with the justice system is that

Darcy Shepard was intelligent, resourceful, imaginative, creative and persuasive, but deeply scarred by his own. his life experiences. The prosecutor spoke about Darcy's ADHD diagnosis and added that the material they had indicated that he also suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome, although he'd never been diagnosed. The court heard about Darcy's relationships and the children he'd fathered. All these facts about Darcy's past were presented fairly sympathetically, peppered with a few mentions of Darcy's friends saying he was loyal and generous. The prosecutor told the court that the negative details were given, quote,

not to demonise Darcy nor as the basis for anyone suggesting that he somehow deserved his fate. After reviewing the information involving Darcy's alcohol and drug use, as well as, quote, psychiatric issues imperfectly understood, the court heard that it was self-evident that these factors contributed to Darcy's conduct described earlier. The final paragraph of this part of the presentation states, quote, Given what we know about Mr. Shepherd, it is not surprising that he would go into a rage from time to time.

And you know, it is quite an amazing story. Most people are ill-situated to overcome the obstacles this man faced. In effect, the Crown was implying that while what happened to Darcy wasn't his fault, It contributed to him turning into what he inevitably was and always would be, a criminal, prone to the evils of addiction and to flying into a rage from time to time. And with that, the special independent prosecutor said, Let me now give you the defence position. Throughout this part of the series, we're going to be using the phrase the court heard quite a bit.

But I wanted to make a note about this. It was a court proceeding, but it's important to keep in mind that this was not a trial. There was no jury, and while there was a judge, he was not there as a trier of fact. He was just there to oversee the proceeding. So now that the court had been primed with a collection of sad stories about Darcy Allen Shepard's life, his criminal rap sheet and more, it was time to hear Michael Bryant's side of the story, the defense position. Typically, when a Crown prosecutor decides to withdraw charges or not prosecute based on likelihood of conviction, they aren't required to go over their reasons for the decision.

They may choose to mention the evidence they do or do not have, and whether there would be a reasonable chance of conviction, but they generally do not go over the defense's side of the story as part of their reasoning, so this was unique. As it turned out, even though neither Michael Bryant nor his wife would speak with police, nor did they ever give a public statement, they did permit an interview with the Crown, the special independent prosecutor. This could be considered highly unusual and is likely one of the reasons why the prosecutor thanked the defense for that very full disclosure in the case,

saying it was a commendable occurrence in a system that's usually adversarial. After all, in what other situation would an accused person refuse to speak to police and refuse to give a public statement, yet permit the Crown prosecutor to interview them? But also, the criminal justice system is actually designed and intended to be adversarial, with two opposite sides presenting their own theories of the case and a judge or jury deciding what has been proven or not proven by the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt. If the court system wasn't adversarial, that would mean that both sides were working together, which is not the intent of the criminal courts.

Yet, in describing this as a commendable occurrence, it appears that this is what the special independent prosecutor was saying here, that both sides were working together. When it came to these interviews with Michael Bryant and his wife Susan Abramovich, it wasn't actually the Special Independent Prosecutor Richard Peck who interviewed them. It was his local representative, Mark Sandler, the Toronto Criminal Defence Lawyer who worked with and for Michael Bryant several times when he was the Attorney General of Ontario. And the court did not hear when these interviews took place.

No date was given. But in Michael Bryant's later memoir 28 seconds, He revealed that these interviews the first time he or his wife gave statements about what happened that night was nearly seven months after Darcy's death. At a minimum, this meant that their recollections were not fresh, but that's not all. They gave these interviews after the Crown had passed over the full disclosure of evidence in the case. So before they gave their statements, Michael Bryant and his wife were privy to, what every eyewitness said they saw,

what the forensic experts determined, the Collision Reconstruction Report, and more. Additionally, these interviews with the Crown were not police interrogations nor formal questionings. An investigator was present, but Bryant and his wife were not sworn in, they weren't cross-examined, and they didn't answer any questions

that were not approved by their lawyers, who were also present. And lastly, the defence stipulated that the interviews had to be conducted without prejudice, which meant that none of the answers given could be used against Michael Bryant. So, with all of this in mind, let's go through the version of events offered by Michael Bryant and his wife, and how it compares to the evidence we have, evidence that wasn't publicly available at the time. The special independent prosecutor told the court about Michael's dinner with his wife, how neither had been drinking, and how they were in the 1995 Saab with both the windows and the top down.

Here we learn that Michael Bryant's story of his altercation with Darcy Allen Shepard does not start at the mid-block pedestrian crossway where the altercation was first noticed by Stephen Victoria. It actually starts at the main intersection before that block, Young Street. According to Michael Bryant, traffic had slowed down, and he saw it was because of construction and a clearly misplaced traffic cone which was blocking a lane. He said that when he looked ahead, he noticed an individual throwing debris onto the road, quote, to impede traffic. When the traffic edged forward and the Saab was next to that misplaced traffic cone,

Michael said he stopped it and moved the cone over to the side of the road to free up the lane. He then drove the Saab through the intersection, moving towards the mid-block pedestrian crossing behind a white SUV that was travelling slowly. Quote from the Special Independent Prosecutor, The vehicle's progress was being impeded by a cyclist who was doing figure eights in front of it. The cyclist was the same man he had seen throwing debris on the same. South's side. Later on in the presentation, the prosecutor quotes a part of Michael Bryant's 911 call. Again, we don't have access to the audio or a transcript, but this is how Michael

Bryant described what he perceived the cyclist had been doing. Quote, he was literally picking fights with people on the corner of Young and Bloor and putting up obstacles in the way and trying to stop cars from going. We all avoided him, drove past him. End quote. From his choice of language here, it sounds as though Michael Bryant was just one of a number of motorists who were apparently also watching what this cyclist was doing and trying to avoid him. But curiously, the court heard nothing about any other motorists who came forward to report they had witnessed such bizarre behavior on that same stretch of Bloor Street that night, nothing either from any bystanders or pedestrians. And this wasn't a quiet intersection. It was Young and Bloor, one of the busiest and most well-known intersections in the city of Toronto.

And obviously before this court proceeding, no one could have known that this part of the story existed because this was the first time that it had been publicly revealed. But remember, Darcy's high-profile death was widely published in the media in the following days, making it fairly obvious that any unusual behaviour witnessed near that same stretch of Bloor Street, that same night, was worth reporting. Yet none of these other motorists or pedestrians have ever come forward to state that they witnessed any of this bizarre behaviour that night. Not one.

According to Michael Bryant, he soon lost sight of the cyclist as he continued to drive slowly on Blur with traffic. Then he stopped at the red lights at the mid-block pedestrian crossway. Quote, as Mr Bryant was waiting for the pedestrian lights to change, the time was approximately 9.48pm. At this point, Michael reported he was a little concerned about the whereabouts of that cyclone. and was looking over the passenger side to the curb to see if he was coming, when suddenly he felt something brush past him on the driver's side. It was the cyclist passing him. Quote,

As Mr. Shepherd was cutting in front of the Bryant vehicle, Mr Bryant was moving the vehicle forward, as the traffic light had changed to green and the car in front of him had moved through the area. This is fairly consistent with what the reconstructed, experts found. When Darcy passed the car, the light was red, but it changed to green just as he maneuvered in front of the Saab and stopped. When it came to that brush that Michael Bryant said he felt, he reported that he had a sense that it was actually the cyclist taking a swing at him. The prosecutor pointed out that he did say this to the 911 operator when he got to the Park

Hyatt Hotel around the corner. Remember, we have no access to a transcript or audio of this 911 call, only a bulleted summary of the call that was on the collision reconstruction report. One bullet states that Michael Bryant said, Guy on a bike sort of attacked me, and another says Michael thought the cyclist took a swing at him and missed. The surveillance footage was mentioned, but this court proceeding wasn't a trial,

so the court did not view the video. But what's interesting to note is that the collision reconstruction experts determined that the video showed Darcy drove down the centre of the roadway, past the Saab with his hands on the handlebars, before driving in front of the stopped Saab. Now, the prosecutor stated that the video did not confirm that Darcy took a swing at Michael Bryant in the car as he cycled past. But he added that video experts agree that the video was low quality

and a low number of frames per second, so it's possible that quick movements might not have been captured by the video. So the court was hearing that a cyclist with a blood alcohol level twice the limit to drive were somehow able to take a swing at a person in a convertible as he cycled past, such a stealthy swing that it's possible the surveillance cameras only captured frames that didn't show it. And then, instead of cycling off, this cyclist decides to stop directly in front of said convertible, facing forward in a very vulnerable position. The video may not have confirmed it, but according to the prosecutor, what the video does show is that Darcy came

very close to the driver's side door, and quote, Mr Bryant ducked to his right while hitting his brakes and turning his wheels to the right. The vehicle, Mr Bryant says, then stalled. Now, while that was all included in the same sentence, I've watched the video in slow motion several times and I can't see any evidence of Michael Bryant ducking and turning the car wheels. It does show that the vehicle starts to move as Darcy passes it. That's when the light change to green and when Darcy stops in front of the car, you can see the rear bumper go up a bit as it suddenly breaks. This could be considered consistent with stalling, although the collision reconstruction experts don't mention anything about it. The court was told that what the video

does show was changes in the luminosity of the Saab's headlights on a number of occasions. Quote, the expert evidence confirms that one explanation for this is that the headlights dimmed as a result of the vehicle stalling and then being restarted. The Special Independent Prosecutor didn't provide any other possible explanations, nor did the court hear that this one was considered the most likely explanation. It was just one explanation that happened to fit with Michael Bryant's story. Next, the court heard that, quote, the police took statements from numerous eyewitnesses in the area.

The witnesses described seeing and hearing aspects of what occurred. No single witness appears to have observed the events from start to finish, and there are both consistencies and inconsistencies in their evidence. The prosecutor went on to say that one of the largely consistent themes in eyewitness statements was that Darcy was acting loudly and aggressively, confronting Michael Bryant while he and his wife remained passive. His wife apparently described Darcy as terrifying. There was no further explanation about what Darcy was actually doing that was consistent with acting loudly and aggressively. No examples were given, no eyewitness statements were mentioned.

And again, this was just one of the largely. consistent themes and eyewitness statements, but it was one that supports Michael Bryant's version of events. None of the other largely consistent themes were mentioned. In fact, the things that Steve and Victoria said they saw was quite contradictory to this theme that Darcy was acting loudly and aggressively. And the man on the bicycle was standing in front of the car. They'd obviously maybe had something gone before because they were agitated. And the man on the bicycle was standing, on the bike was standing in front of the car, and the only words I heard him utter throughout the whole thing, which was the weird thing about, you know, you think they were having a road

to rage at being arguing and shouting at each other. There was nothing. The bicycle man just said to the car driver, he was kind of standing in front of the car with his bike, and he wasn't moving, and the lights changed to green, and he said, you want me to move now, you know, like kind of, he was tormenting him. Remember, Darcy was straddling his bike, front of the Saab facing forward the whole time. The cyclist was, my first image, as I recall, was pulling up in front of the car and had a smile on his face, the cyclist did. You know, a cyclist, not a smile saying I'm happy, but you're just, you know, I'm going

to piss you off type of smile to the driver and pulled his bike right in front of the of the hood blocking his way. The thing that really struck me, even at that point in time, was there was no verbal altercation between the two. Absolutely none. The driver was stoneman-faced, passive, and the woman was also just sitting there. So there was certainly not any screaming at this point in time

between the two parties. The thing that the game just strikes me is, I mean, I've all been guilty of certainly and getting frustrated with other drivers and so on, he's some expletives and so on, but there was no dialogue at all. And at no point, and, you know, do I recall any words taking place at all

between driver at this one time and cyclists? Now, the parking garage guy said he did see Darcy say something to the driver, but didn't specify what it was. And as you'll remember, Darcy then said something to bystanders. I saw a man get up off the street, pick up his bicycle. And I saw him, he was talking to the person driving the car, and then he picked something up, maybe his bicycle or a bag or something,

and he threw it on the foot of the car. And I heard him say to whoever was standing around, that you're all witnesses to this. You're all witnesses to this. As you'll remember, two other eyewitnesses reported hearing this in their statements, one of whom reported that Darcy was gesturing at the Saab as he did this. Now, it should be pointed out that Darcy had been charged

and convicted of assault before. He knew what constituted assault in the eyes of the law. So if he was the aggressor, the perpetrator of an attack on Michael Bryant, why would he want to make sure there were witnesses to it? And despite three separate independent witnesses on record saying they heard Darcy say this, there was not one mention of it in the Crown's presentation that day.

That's where we'll leave it for this episode. Thanks for listening. In part four, we'll continue going through the defense's version of events as presented in court that date by the special independent prosecutor. And we'll also continue to compare details given in this version to the information we have now, information that wasn't publicly available at the time. Now, there's a lot of source material used for this series,

including the Collision Reconstruction Report, the transcript of this court proceeding, the video statements from several eyewitnesses, the surveillance videos, the blogs that have been set up, all the media articles and resources used and more. If you wanted to take a look at it, please see the show notes or visit the page for this episode at canadian truecrime.ca.

As always, thank you so much for your kind ratings, reviews, messages and support. I really appreciate them. Thanks also to Haley Gray for Research Assistance and We Talk of Dreams for audio production. The host of True Voice the Disclaimer, and of course we talk of dreams composed the theme song. I'll be back soon with Part 4. See you then.