Canadian True Crime - The Death of Darcy Allan Sheppard—Part 6

Episode Date: July 1, 2022

[ Part 6 of 6 ]  The conclusion. Review the evidence:WATCH: The Surveillance Footage at the mid-block pedestrian crosswayWATCH: Eyewitness statements and 911 call audioREAD:    Collision Reconstruction ReportREAD:    Transcript from May 25 2010 Court ProceedingMedia referenced in this episode:READ: Lost Boy: The death of Darcy Allan Sheppard, by Jennifer Wells, December 26, 2013WATCH: Michael Bryant's Ted X TalkREAD: 28 Seconds: A True Story of Addiction, Tragedy, and Hope by Michael Bryant, published by Viking, Toronto, 2012WATCH: Michael Bryant's interview with Amanda Lang on CBC  READ: Darcy's sister Chantel: "Daughter begs for help solving mom’s 2013 murder: ‘Our family needs answers’Canadian True Crime donates monthly to those facing injustice.This month we have donated to: Bicycle Messenger Emergency Fund Full list of resources and information sources and credits:See the page for this episode  at canadiantruecrime.caCredits:Research and production assistance: Haley GrayAudio editing: Eileen MacfarlaneResearch, writing, sound design: Kristi LeeTheme by We Talk of DreamsDisclaimer voiced by the host of True Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You can get anything you need with Uber Eats. Well, almost, almost anything. So no, you can't get snowballs on Uber Eats, but meatballs and mozzarella balls, yes, we can deliver that. Uber Eats, get almost, almost anything. Order now. Product availability may vary by region. See app for details. Hi, everyone. This is the final part of a six-part series. I know it's been heavy and grueling, and this episode is the same. It's action packed until the very end. Obviously, a longer episode means the entire production process blows out. So thank you so much for your patience with the slight delay. And while I'm here, I wanted to thank you for all the lovely emails and messages. I don't have time to reply at the moment, but I read them all and I

appreciate them so much. I also wanted to let you know that after this, I'll be taking a bit of a break to spend time with my family, but we'll be back with a new episode in a month on August the 1st. Now, before we start, I have to give the standard disclaimer. As part of today's episode, you'll hear some interview clips, but the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect my opinion or the official position of this podcast. 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. The last episode described the end of the court

proceeding, where the special independent prosecutor explained why the charges were being withdrawn. In layman's terms, his argument was this. When you take into consideration Michael Bryant's fear that night, which was justified because of Darcy Alan Shepard's past history of aggression, Michael's driving of the Saab was consistent with what any other decent driver would have done in the same situation, and that's why there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Michael Bryant's criminal defense lawyer, Marie Hennin, also provided some commentary, telling the court that when the objective facts were fully exposed and examined, they pointed to one and only one conclusion,

Michael's innocence. The Michael Bryant who pulled up at the lights that night was described as someone celebrating his 12th wedding anniversary with his wife, until a raging Darcy Allen Shepard cycled into their sphere and interrupted their warm and nostalgic night of reminiscing. At the end of the proceeding, Justice P. Bentley praised both the Crown and the defence, saying that they worked beyond what he had seen in many years and that they represent the best interest of the justice system. After the special independent prosecutor put Michael Bryant's untested version of events on the public record that day, many media outlets jumped on board to describe Michael as an everyman

who was reacting in fear and panic to Darcy, a deranged cyclist hothead, consumed by demons from his awful past. Behind the scenes, Darcy's supporters and his father, Alan Shepard, were reeling. They felt blindsided. The Crown is not required to explain why it's withdrawing charges, and most of the time it doesn't, which is something that can often be frustrating for those on the victim or survivor's side. But that day, Richard Peck made the decision to not only explain the charges, but to do it in detail as part of a full presentation where he referred to evidence that hadn't been tested at trial. He also introduced

the Scopoliti evidence, those incidents that apparently demonstrated Darcy had a prior history of aggression with other drivers, and used that as a justification for Michael Bryant's response that day. That evidence hadn't been tested at trial either. In fact, none of the evidence referred to by the special independent prosecutor was available to the public. So Alan Shepard decided to apply under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to see what documents he could get access to. As that was being processed, Michael Bryant published his memoir, 28 Seconds, revealing that he and his wife were not celebrating their anniversary that night, one who'd described tiptoeing on eggshells at home before a tense evening where they debated, argued about the future of their marriage. And it was the same driver who had told Jennifer Wells of the Toronto Star that he felt liberated when leaving politics, that he no longer needed to put an election sign on anyone's lawn,

and he saw the Saab as a symbol of his new freedom. He was quoted saying, Road Rage is back in my life, just three months before Darcy Alan Shepard died. And in the book, he described Darcy as big, drunk, and raging, a beast, a growling man who seemed to be howling at him and screaming at people on the sidewalk. But he also used the book to position himself next to that growling man, revealing that he too was engaging in hazardous use of alcohol during his time as Attorney General. He explained that his memoir was an offering for other alcohol addicts, adding that he saw many Darcy Allen Shepherds in the 12-step recovery rooms he attends,

describing their tattoos and scars and hoarse voices, their bones out of joint and their closely cropped hair. The connection between closely cropped hair and the 12-step program is unknown, but the message coming through was that Michael Bryant had flaws too. He wasn't so much a Toronto elite or a golden boy. In fact, he was just like Darcy Alan Shepard. Then he went on a media tour to promote his book, which included multiple appearances on the TV shows of his high-profile acquaintances, prompting accusations of favouritism to downright conflict of interest.

Three years after Darcy's death, Alan Shepard finally received the Collision Reconstruction Report. Its conclusion that both men shared responsibility for what happened jumped out at him. So too did the statement that there was no evidence to suggest that Darcy Alan Shepard physically attacked Michael Bryant or affected the steering of the Saab. And when Alan compared this report to the transcript of the court proceeding, he soon saw some pretty significant inconsistencies. Later in today's episode, you'll hear from Alan Shepard, and I'll be asking him some questions that I was left with after doing my review and analysis of the materials in this case.

But first, I want to take a trip back to May 25th, 2010, the day that the special independent prosecutor explained the reasons for his decision to withdraw Michael Bryant's charges. Like, first of all, I didn't know the court, the case was even, I just was waiting. And then a friend of mine calls up and she says, oh, did you see the news? Michael Bryant's like been acquitted, or I don't know if it's acquitted if you've never been to trial, but basically he's got off and charges withdrawn, that's it. So I was like, what? How is that possible? And she said, it's on the news.

Victoria and her husband Steve were the primary two eyewitnesses who were close to the lights at the mid-block pedestrian crossway. They saw the altercation right up until the car drove off with Darcy clinging to the side. You've heard their 911 calls and clips from the full statements they gave that same night. Behind the scenes, Victoria was alerted to this podcast series. Behind the scenes, Victoria was alerted to this podcast series. And if you follow the Canadian True Crime Facebook page, you might have seen that she identified herself in a comment on one of our Facebook posts. From there, she and I started emailing, which led to an interview of sorts.

There's little value in asking Victoria to rehash what happened that night, since she and her husband Steve gave permission to publicly release their full statements, and they both still stand by them. Instead, I wanted to ask her a few key questions that have been swirling around as I reviewed everything. And before we continue, in the interests of fairness and balance, I want to emphasize that my questions to Victoria are intended as a counterbalance to some of the things Michael Bryant stated in his memoir. In no way am I implying that what Victoria said in her statement, or what you'll hear in her conversation with me, is something that should be believed over what Michael Bryant asserted and wrote in his book. that should be believed over what Michael Bryant asserted and wrote in his book. It's true that she and Steve gave their original sworn statements separately, hours after Darcy Alan Shepard died. And it's also true that Michael gave his statement seven months later, under less than transparent conditions. But it's also important to remember that none of their statements have ever been

tested in court by a trier of fact, like a judge or a jury. I asked Victoria how she felt in the aftermath of Darcy Alan Shepard's death, when it became a prime feature of the news cycle and the story twisted and changed. After about a couple of days, I don't really know the timescale because I was so upset by the whole thing, I couldn't really, I had to stop listening because suddenly it went like, you know, from this accident happened on Bloor Street and Michael Bryant had hit this cyclist to, like, the cyclist attacked him and he was scared for his life. And, you know, he grabbed

his steering wheel and he jumped in the car and all this stuff. And I was so upset because that's not what happened. So I called the, um, I called the police woman who interviewed me and I said to her, I can't, I can't watch the news. This is awful. Where are these witnesses? Who's saying this stuff? Like we were the only people there, you know, you can see that in the video. There was one video where you could see me even with my hand in the air, kind of going back and forward, showing him the telephone, you know what I mean? You could see my hand. And so I just called her and she was like, you know, it's just the press. Don't worry. It's just the press don't worry it's just the press so I stopped I stopped kind of listening to it because I found it very upsetting because it we'd given

our statements we'd given our 911 call and then suddenly there then it's like a whole different story and I kind of felt that if you know they started portraying Darcy in such a terrible way and I kind of thought that if it had been me on the bike, they couldn't really have done that. You know what I mean? Why do you, why do you say that? Because, you know, if it had been me, because I'm, I don't have a history of, you know, alcohol addiction or drug addiction. So I just kind of felt that, you know, like if it had been anyone else on the bike, they couldn't have switched it around so easily. had been anyone else on the bike they couldn't have switched it around so easily. I found it very upsetting to be honest. I actually started having panic attacks when I was driving, couldn't drive at night. It really affected me.

Victoria did what was expected of her as an eyewitness and stayed quiet, expecting that she and Steve would eventually be contacted about the statements they had given and they would likely have to testify in court. They waited for months and months. So I asked her, were you ever contacted by Richard Peck or his Toronto agent, Mark Sandler? No, we were never contacted by anybody ever again,

which is kind of what I couldn't believe. Like, how can you... He's got his, like, defence, but what about the prosecution? Like, how can you not interview witnesses and then just say, like, OK, we're just... I just couldn't understand it. No, never. And that brings us to May 25th 2010 when a friend told Victoria that the charges had just been withdrawn charges withdrawn that's it

so I was like what how is that possible and she said it's on the news and so I couldn't believe it and I kind of, can I say, basically I lived down the road from him and I knew where he lived and I used to drive past like the end of the road every day and I saw after a couple of days a convertible in his drive and suddenly I kind of kept thinking that can't be possible. Since Victoria brought up the convertible in the driveway, I have to do some explaining before we continue. This case has a huge amount of information available and in trying to keep the series down to six parts, it would be impossible to include it all.

But when I went through Michael Bryant's side, he's a public figure who has done many public interviews and written a memoir, so there's a lot more information about him in the public eye, and I had to be much more selective about what I choose to focus on. There were a few things that he said and wrote after Darcy Ellen Shepard's death that raised eyebrows for showing a lack of self-awareness, and one of the things that I left out of this series was something that he wrote about in his memoir. When the charges were withdrawn, it meant that his ban on driving was lifted. In his memoir, Michael wrote that at the press conference, a reporter shouted to him, are you going to get another convertible? He said he bit

his lip and said, we'll see, but he wrote that the question actually gave him an idea. That same afternoon, he decided to ride the subway up to the station located at the intersection of Bloor and Yonge streets, where he said he first saw Darcy throwing garbage and picking fights with people. There was a hire car place there and he rented a convertible, writing in his book that he hadn't driven a car for nine months. Quote, I put the top down, then I went straight into a traffic jam for 45 minutes, wondering what it was exactly I had missed. I got a phone call about an hour later from a friend, I had missed. I got a phone call about an hour later from a friend saying she'd heard I was in a convertible. I said I was. She told me to pull over, put the top up and go home. So I did.

In his book, he wrote that some people might have perceived what he did as the old Bryant chutzpah. Chutzpah being a Yiddish word meaning gall, audacity, extreme self-confidence. But he wrote that it was much more than that, describing his love of convertibles as a celebration of his sobriety, and he also wanted to get back on the horse and not be afraid anymore in a car. Broadcaster Amanda Lang actually brought this up in his CBC interview, pointing out the optics of hiring a convertible the same day that his charges for criminal negligence and dangerous driving causing death in another convertible were withdrawn. He was sheepish when he responded. responded. Victoria and Steve lived close to Michael Bryant's house at the time, and she's about to explain how she felt when she saw that convertible in his driveway. And just to clarify, this is not intended to be a judgment call about whether Michael should or shouldn't have hired a

convertible. It's Victoria's personal reaction to seeing that convertible that's important, because it's what prompted her to do what she did next. Let's continue. There's a convertible in his drive, and suddenly I kind of kept thinking, that can't be possible, he can't be driving a convertible. If you were scared for your life, and you thought you were going to be killed by someone or whatever, and leads you to get off would you actually get into a convertible ever again like I don't think so so I I saw it and I kind of I saw red I was like this is unbelievable so I contacted the first police station that we were interviewed and I I said, I don't understand, like, how is this possible? And they couldn't really officially say anything to me, but they were in disbelief.

And then I tried to contact the people on the letter, because I got a letter from Sandler's office, which said you could call at any time to speak to anybody. So I called the policemen on there, and they didn't call me back. And I called every day. I wasn't going to let it lie because I wanted to know how this could be the case. And finally, I got one of the policemen. He spoke to me for about an hour. He told me that there was nothing wrong with the bike. And I was like, how is that don't I don't know the forensics on the bike like but they said they sent it he told me they sent it to Virginia and that it had nothing wrong with it and I said but it had to because I couldn't I couldn't wheel it I had to carry it and he told me that

Michael had said he stole the car and I said I'd never heard such rubbish in my life. I was standing right next to the car, like literally, I was in disbelief. I'd driven a manual my whole life. I'd never driven an automatic. Now I do because of all the stop signs. But, you know, like, you know, in England, I'd only ever driven a manual. Here, my first car was a manual. Just to interject for a second, I too learned to drive with a manual or a stick shift. In fact, it's all that I'd ever driven for the 13 years that I drove in Australia.

I've now been driving in Canada for just as long, but when we first moved here, I got a bit stressed out about having to manage the gears and the pedals on the other side of the car while driving on the other side of the road. So it's been automatics for me ever since. Kudos to Victoria for figuring it out. My point is that I will never forget my embarrassing season of constant bunny hops as a 16 year old learning to drive. I stalled the car too many times in a variety of different ways. So it was amusing to hear a similar reaction about stalling from Victoria. We're about to get to where she explains why she decided to reach out to Alan Shepard,

but before that, she just heard that Michael Bryant said he stalled the car. The car was a manual, and I said to the policeman, if you walk in front of someone who drives a manual, if it stalls, you should get out the way because it's going to jump forward two car lengths and knock someone off their bike and throw them over. I've never heard so much rubbish in my life. I don't think that standing so close to him if he had stalled his car I would have seen it and I would have said he stalled his car there's I drive a manual car like he told me all those things and I kind of was so annoyed so I actually the long and short of it is I contacted Alan because I just wanted to tell him that his son didn't do any of those things that they said he did so I just wanted him to know that you know people were painting such a bad aggressive picture

of him and I wanted to say the picture that I had of him in those seconds or minutes was not the big crazy drunk aggressive person it was a it was actually quiet slightly you know he he kind of tormented him when he turned around to him but that was two seconds and he did nothing else after that nothing you know what I mean obviously he he held on to the side of the car which put him in danger and probably antagonized Bryant but he didn't do anything I just wanted him to know that and that's why I contacted him. Alan Shepard still lives in Edmonton and he's now 84 years old. Earlier on in this series I described him as someone who's always been full of love and empathy for his late son, while pragmatically acknowledging the shades of light and dark in Darcy's past. It was Alan's brutal honesty that

first caught my attention when I came across an update to the case, which was his 2015 interview on the Canada Land podcast. Alan was of course aware that I was doing this series and while he said he was available if I had any questions he encouraged me to research the case myself and come to my own conclusions which is how I prefer to work anyway. So once I got near the end I circled back with my questions. Because we had a recorded phone call, the audio on Alan's clips is a little bit muffled at times, but I got what I needed for the purposes of this episode. I asked him what he would most want people to know about Darcy, and as part of his response,

he refers back to how he felt when Victoria and Steve first reached out to him. Well, what I want people to know about Darcy is that he was a complex individual, that he was a charmer, which meant that people liked him easily and that he was smart. But at the same time, he used those gifts that he had inappropriately at times. He did break the law, and he broke the law consistently. And I'm not going to excuse him over that. I understand to have happened at the crosswalk in his encounter with Mr. Bryant, as is presented in the Collision Reconstruction Report, and as is presented primarily by statements by Steve and Victoria,

is that in many cases that actually came as a surprise to me. But in many cases, that actually came as a surprise to me. I went along at the beginning with the decision because of all that I knew about my son's past and how he dealt with me and how he dealt with other people. And I made the mistake of judging him by his past. Victoria and hearing their statements, from reading the reconstruction report, and from talking to cyclists who have been in some of them in similar situations, that my son actually acted surprisingly well in that circumstance. There's more to come from Alan and Victoria, but next, we'll rejoin the story from 2013, where he's just received the collision reconstruction report and realised that it almost completely had been left out of Richard Peck's explanation for why the charges had been withdrawn. We'll see you next time. So no, you can't get an ice rink on Uber Eats. But iced tea, ice cream, or just plain old ice? Yes, we deliver those.

Goal tenders, no. But chicken tenders, yes. Because those are groceries, and we deliver those too. Along with your favorite restaurant food, alcohol, and other everyday essentials. Order Uber Eats now. For alcohol, you must be legal drinking age. Please enjoy responsibly. Product availability varies by region.

See app for details. Hi, everyone. Today we're talking passion projects that turn into careers. A topic that obviously resonates quite a bit with me. In collaboration with the Ontario Cannabis Store and ACAST Creative, I want to introduce you to someone who took his passion for cannabis, turned it into a career and is now an industry trailblazer. This is Nico Soziak. He's the chief financial officer of Canara Biotech, a prominent producer based in Montreal. Nico, I know that you've had a passion for cannabis for quite a few years, but you seem a lot younger than what I was expecting. I have to know how and when you got into the cannabis business.

Yeah, absolutely. I look younger, but I'm aging by the day. But no, I'm 35 years old. I got into cannabis about five years ago. Started with Canara. But you were a consumer before that. Yeah, I've been a consumer. I had friends in the legacy side of the business and watched what they did.

I tried the different strains and business and watched what they did. I tried the different strains and genetics, watched how they grew, really found a passion for cannabis and the products. But my professional career is an accountant. So while I had a passion for cannabis, I was also a straight A student. Wow. And then Canada decided to legalize cannabis. And that was when I was like, okay, this is kind of my calling. I have to try to figure out how do I can get into the industry. And Canara had just became a public company. I joined them in April, 2019 and built the finance department here at Canara and worked with the founder. And at one point I was given the keys to that. And now I'm here today.

At one point, I was given the keys to that. And now I'm here today. Wow, that's such a cool story. So how do you feel about being called a trailblazer in the legal market now? It's an honor. I've looked up to many trailblazers in this industry today that come from the legacy side that went to legal. You know, I'm happy to be part of that. Actually, I wanted to ask you about the legacy market.

How did you incorporate it into operations on the legal side? I don't pretend that the cannabis market just got created in 2017, right? For me, legacy means that everyone that's been working, all the businesses that have been in the industry pre-legalization. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel in terms of thinking I know what consumers want. There's been an industry that's been built for many, many, many years. So it's all the ideas and creations that were pre-legalization, figuring out how do we evolve that into the legal side with all the regulatory frameworks. What would you say is the best part of working in the legal market? Knowing that your product is clean, knowing what you're consuming, we're ensuring quality,

we're ensuring the price. I think we're ahead of other industries. Okay, so final question. What gets you excited to go to work every day? This is my dream. This is my passion. I get excited. Work doesn't feel like work for me.

When you're creating things that you dream about, I give the idea to the team. The team is able to execute different innovations. That's what really gets me excited. Thanks for listening to this Trailblazers story brought to you by the Ontario Cannabis Store and ACAST Creative. If you like the trail Nico Soziak is blazing, you will love what's happening in legal cannabis. Visit ocs.ca slash trailblazers to learn more. Darcy Alan Shepard's supporters scheduled an event to announce the inconsistencies in the Collision Reconst reconstruction report to be held at the Native Canadian Centre of Toronto, because as you'll remember, Darcy was Métis.

A press release was distributed to the media and the event was attended by cycling advocates, bike messengers, Darcy's loved ones, other activists and some reporters. Darcy's loved ones, other activists and some reporters. Alan Shepard, then 75 years old, travelled to Toronto by Greyhound bus from his home in Edmonton. He told the crowd he wasn't looking for vengeance, he was not calling for the case to be reopened, nor did he have any objection to the charges being dropped. What he did have a problem with was that his review of the documents strongly suggested that the Crown Prosecutor, quote, tweaked, massaged, and cherry-picked evidence and testimony, and anything that did not support Mr Bryant's version was rejected. Allen said that the special prosecutor ignored or rejected the collision

reconstruction report and dismissed the statements from 19 eyewitnesses that did not line up with Michael Bryant's version. The statements that suggest he was at least as aggressive as the court heard Darcy Allen Shepard had been, if not more. He told those gathered that he accepted from the start that Michael Bryant would likely claim self-defense, and he knew that Darcy's history would likely have been used to raise doubt about Michael's guilt. Alan Shepard emphasized that the injustice was not in the dropping of charges, it was in the Crown's explanation for why the charges were dropped. The documents they received so far raised serious questions, questions that they hoped the Crown files for the case might be able to answer. And they had applied for those files as well,

but the request in that case was denied. Allen said he was appealing that decision, denied. Allen said he was appealing that decision, but he was told not to get his hopes up. He added, surely justice requires more transparency and accountability than that. He went on to state that he recognizes that the Crown represents society, the community, all of us, including Michael Bryant. And while he knows that the Crown must find a balance between conflicting expectations, that balance must recognise that Darcy Alan Shepard was just as much a part of society as Michael Bryant was. He questioned why the special prosecutor appeared to cross to the other side of what is supposed to be an adversarial relationship to become the special prosecutor appeared to cross to the other side of what is supposed to be an adversarial relationship to become the special defender of Michael Bryant.

He said it's not a question he can answer, but one he hopes that, quote, Some of you will attempt to answer with skills, resources, experience and energy that I do not have. and energy that I do not have. Alan Shepard ended his rallying cry by stating, quote, to be clear, the injustice I see is not in the decision to drop charges. It is the decision by Mr. Peck and Mr. Sandler to explain that first decision in a way that exonerates Mr. Bryan of all responsibility and accountability and, in effect, justifies what he did to my son, without the transparency necessary to support such a conclusion. He called on the media to investigate further, but not with malice.

Unfortunately, the timing was not good. not with malice. Unfortunately, the timing was not good. May 23, 2013 happened to be a big news day for Toronto. It was just after allegations had surfaced that there was a video showing the Toronto Mayor, Rob Ford, smoking crack cocaine. At first, the Mayor denied it was him, and that day, the media were scrambling to report on breaking news that he had fired his chief of staff, Mark Toohey, who had advised him to get help at a rehab centre. Months later, the mayor would admit that it was him on the video. But because of the unfortunate timing, with Darcy Alan Shepard's press conference held the same day, there were less reporters there, so less stories were filed. But there was one journalist at the press conference who decided the story was worth

looking into more. Jennifer Wells would write an e-book or long-form article called Lost Boy, The Death of Darcy Alan Shepard for the Toronto Star. In it, she said her interest in writing up Darcy's full story was spurred when Alan Shepard described the fact that Darcy had been assigned a role in the tragedy of his death, the role of a berserker. The Toronto Star paid for their own copy of the Collision Reconstruction Report, and Jennifer Wells would write that it shed striking new light on the details of Darcy's death, details that appear to contradict the version of events presented by Michael Bryant in his book. She details Darcy's childhood and life,

pieced together from interviews with people who knew him, including his biological mother Diane and his adoptive parents, Ellen Shepard and his ex-wife Beth. The journalist also spoke with Darcy's brother David, his ex-partner and mother of his first two children, and other sources, including his friends. The Lost Boy piece is long, detailed, and an amazing read. There's a link to it in the show notes. Jennifer Wells also met with and interviewed many other people involved in the tragedy, including Victoria. By this point, they had given permission for their video statements and 911 calls to be released to Ellen Shepard, and so Jennifer Wells viewed them as well. After noticing that their statements were not consistent with the Crown's repeated assertions that Darcy was enraged and acting aggressively throughout, she got clarification from Victoria, and then asked the special prosecutor's local representative,

Mark Sandler, for a comment. He told her that he remembered doing an analysis of Steve and Victoria's statements and quote, if I recall correctly, there were some things in the statements that were undermined by other things we had. He acknowledged his response wasn't helpful and he no longer has the file, but then he posed a question. Even if you were to accept the veracity or accuracy of their statements, what would that mean for the Crown? His answer was, quote, Let's assume for the purposes of a discussion that Mr Bryant came into moderately slight contact with his bicycle and that was what spurred Mr Shepard to go ballistic or get aggressive in some way toward Mr Bryant. It still wouldn't be criminal negligence causing death or

dangerous driving causing death, end quote. It sounds like a cut and dry answer, but the question wasn't really answered, and the response given appears to contain a bit of a logical fallacy. If Mark Sandler did accept that Steve and Victoria's statements were accurate, then he would also have to accept that Darcy was not in a rage, nor was he going ballistic at any point. And if he accepted their statements that Darcy was actually quiet and passive-aggressive and Michael Bryant's car did come into contact with the bike that first time, there is no way he would be able to discount charges of criminal negligence or dangerous driving causing death the way he did. Jennifer Wells also noted that Michael's version of the story was that Darcy was in a rage before there was any contact between the car and the bike and in his memoir

Michael had written quote, it was Darcy Shepard who then pulled directly in front of our car and spun his bike around to confront us, sneering at me. This is completely contradictory to both eyewitness statements and the surveillance footage. Although Darcy turned his head back, both he and the bike were facing forward the whole time. The journalist had contacted Michael Bryant for an interview, but he declined. So she asked him for clarification on this point, and he responded by email. This is what he said, quote, There has never been any question that Darcy Shepard was facing the Saab.

The video and witnesses were clear on that point, I recall, regardless of which bike wheel was closest to the car. If Michael isn't so sure when asked for clarification, then it appears to be a definite choice that he made, to write up a significantly more dramatic version of Darcy's conduct before the car made contact with the bike. He ended his response by pointing to Richard Peck's address to the court, specifically where it says, one of the largely consistent themes is that Mr. Shepard was acting loudly and aggressively. No examples given, no eyewitness statements were mentioned. So, did Darcy spin his bike around to confront them or not? I asked Victoria for clarification but first I wanted to know just how close she was to the Saab. From what I understand

you saw everything that happened up until the car took off for 100 meters with Darcy clinging to the side. I wanted to ask you how far away were you from Michael Bryant's car at that point? So I was actually very close because weirdly enough on Bloor Street there wasn't any much traffic so I was standing with my feet my toes on the curb so if Darcy had put out his hand I could have touched him. And what was it that first caught your attention about the incident? What happened was the car was there and then the bike pulls in front and it was all quiet. So you wouldn't think anything was going on, nothing at all. And then suddenly Darcy turns around and he says something like, so now you want me to move, don't you?

And I was like, oh, that's weird. Like something must have happened, you know, for him to say that. You know, something must have happened. Everything was quiet and still. They were quiet. There was no talking, nothing, like nothing at all. You wouldn't know anything was going on until I suppose lights changed and Darcy just turned around and then he looked ahead and that was it.

Nothing else. Michael also wrote in his book that Darcy spun his bike around to confront us, sneering. Did you witness any of this? No, no. His bike was like facing forward the whole time. And he literally just turned his head, kind of looked back and said, now you want me to move, don't you? And then looked forward, nothing else.

Because I was kind of like, whoa, something's gone on here. But, you know, like it didn't seem like that when they first got there. You know what I mean? It was so quiet. I was like, wow, oh, okay. I also asked Victoria about the part in Michael's memoir, 28 Seconds, where he wrote that when Darcy first pulled up directly in front of the Saab, he and his wife felt trapped. And he described Darcy as big, drunk and raging. And they both wondered if Darcy had a weapon on him.

How does that line up with what you saw? Did you think he was big, drunk and raging? No, no, not at all. It was quiet. Like I said, he literally came up, rode in front, went in front of him. And I was standing so close, I didn't notice anything at all was happening. But that's what was so weird about the whole thing. Like Michael and his wife were quiet.

Darcy was quiet. The only words that I heard were, you want me to move, don't you? In this next part, Victoria is first referring to Darcy's reaction after the Saab moved onto the back wheel of the bike, knocking the bike over and jostling Darcy. And then when the first bit, you know, where the bike went under the car, he just pulled it up. He didn't say anything. He just pulled the bike up. I think he was in shock. Like he didn't, he didn't utter one word. No words were spoken. He lifted up the bike, you know, then when he

rammed into him, that was such a shock. He was on the floor. He didn't even, I didn't hear him say anything. I know people said, he said, you're my witnesses. I did not hear that. I just saw him like, look at me, throw the bag. And when he went to the car, the car was moving already. So it wasn't like, he was like grabbing onto something that was moving. And as soon as he put his hands on the side, he put his foot down. In court, the special prosecutor had implied the Crown had other eyewitness accounts who said Darcy was attempting to attack Michael, specifically citing one who said they saw Darcy in the Saab from the waist up.

construction experts and according to the report there were only a few eyewitnesses to that first part of the incident before the Saab took off down the wrong side of the road and Steve and Victoria were the main ones. As an eyewitness herself I asked Victoria for her perspective on these other eyewitnesses cited by the special prosecutor. So the witnesses who came forward who, when they said, oh, you know, he attacked him, he jumped in the car and all this kind of stuff, I know for sure that Steve and I, it was him, me, there's one other man you can see in the video. That's not Steve. You can see one other person.

And then there's the guy that took the bag from me who saw whatever happened before. And then across the road, there were people, there were a lot of people and down the other side. So there weren't, there wasn't anyone else who came forward. There wasn't anyone who stood with us. There wasn't anyone who came forward. You know what I mean? Here's what Michael Bryant wrote in his memoir, about Darcy reportedly attempting to attack him. Quote, I couldn't take my two hands off the wheel even if I'd wanted to. I was struggling with Darcy Shepard for control of the wheel.

The journalist Jennifer Wells for the Toronto Star asked him for clarification on this, in the context of the collision reconstruction report that states there was no physical evidence or independent witness statements suggesting Darcy affected the steering of the Saab. Michael's response was to once again direct her to Richard Peck's presentation, in particular the struggle that caused the vehicle to turn sharply and head on to the wrong side of the road. So now that the narrative presented by the special independent prosecutor had been put on the public record by way of that executive summary distributed to the media, it was quick and easy for Michael to refer back to that when asked a specific question about what happened. You remember he also did it at that press conference held after the charges were withdrawn. When a reporter asked him to clarify why he didn't take his foot off the gas, he declined to respond

and deferred to the special independent prosecutor's presentation, calling it an exhaustive explanation of what happened that day. But it needs to be pointed out that the main source for that explanation appears to be Michael Bryant himself, in a statement given to the Crown without prejudice seven months after the incident and after they'd viewed all the evidence. And it's true that he did not have to give a statement at all. It is his right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to remain silent. So that begs the question, what might have happened if Michael didn't give a statement? Obviously, the Crown always has the burden of proof,

so a prosecutor would have referred to evidence like the sworn statements of those 19 eyewitnesses, any testimony they might give in court, the audio of the 911 calls and the findings of experts like the Collision Reconstruction Report. On the other side, if Michael Bryant upheld his right to silence, the only way a defense could have been mounted is essentially the same, to suggest what his side of the story might have been through witness testimony and defense exhibits. It's

highly unlikely that whatever this evidence is that the special prosecutor mentioned, unlikely that whatever this evidence is that the special prosecutor mentioned, evidence behind a firewall that corroborates Michael Bryant's version of events, is enough to completely override all the other evidence that is publicly available. It deserved to be tested in court before a trier of fact. But I digress. Back to his version of events. fact, but I digress. Back to his version of events. After the Saab accelerated into Darcy, sending him over the hood and onto the road, Michael Bryant wrote what happened next. I'll quote a paragraph from 28 Seconds before we cross to Victoria. He wrote, quote, cross to Victoria. He wrote, quote, curled his backpack, containing a heavy bike lock at us. It went sailing over my head. I put the car in first gear and tried to drive around him. Outraged, he raced towards the front of our car. I remember Susan screaming, oh my god, over and over. Chasing after us, he leapt at the Saab as

if in slow motion. Shepard landed hip first to break his fall. The way you see stuntmen as cops do the hood slide on crime shows. It made a crunching noise. I felt the impact of a man over 200 pounds landing on my car. He then grabbed the windshield wiper and bent it back toward him. He began pulling himself toward me, hand over hand, as if the wiper were a rope. The strength of the man was extraordinary. He seemed almost superhuman. His upper torso was now on the hood's edge, driver's side, with the car still moving forward.

He swung around, put his right arm inside the door, his left armpit around the side mirror. He held up his legs, a feat of some strength, no doubt assisted by the adrenaline that, I later learned, Darcy so often sought. The car suddenly swerved sharply to the left, almost 45 degrees. I have no recollection how that happened. He must have grabbed the wheel. In wrestling for control of the car, we crossed over to the south side of the street, heading westbound into the eastbound lane. End quote. So according to Michael Bryant, the reason the car swerved to the left, which is how it ended up on the wrong side of the road, Now, Victoria actually referenced this in her original statement. As she saw it, the Saab was already heading over to the wrong side of the road when Darcy ran after it and latched on.

Just another reminder here that this is a counterbalance. Neither of their statements have been tested in court. But something has to be said for the fact that Victoria Swarn's statement was given hours after Darcy died. She didn't know any of the people involved, she had no personal agenda influencing her perception and she couldn't have known what the future held for this case. Here's what she said. Then the guy in the car started to drive off on the wrong side of the road. The man on the bike gets up and starts to run after him, probably maybe ran, I'm not very good at distances, it was pretty much kind of not, it was across the road at an angle, halfway through he jumped on the side of the car,

so the car wasn't going too too fast, but it was kind of going to go, and he was running fast, he jumps on the side, and he literally put his arms both arms over the driver's side of the door but it wasn't like the driver was like scared of you know what i mean it wasn't like he was scared they were both very angry it was kind of like i think what he thought maybe was that the driver would stop but the driver then put his foot straight down on the gas and at the top speed with the man dragging on the car like in a movie behind like holding on for dear life I don't think he could let go he was going to I wanted her to clarify again in the context of what Michael Bryant wrote in 28 seconds but I had

other questions as well like what happened to Darcy's backpack or messenger bag? The way Michael wrote about it, there was an obvious implication that Darcy was intentionally using his bag with the bike lock as a weapon. Now, Victoria, you were the person who picked up that backpack because it landed at your feet. So can you tell us what you saw? Okay, so basically, that was after he'd been, you know, Michael had banged into him, and he had gone onto the bonnet of his car. And then he fell into the road. So he was kind of sitting on the driver's side, but not near the driver's side, like, you know, he was, he bounced off it onto the road, and he was sitting there. And he just looked, it was like he was in disbelief and he had the backpack in his hand Michael was reversing back because he couldn't

go forward because the bike was there so he was reversing between Darcy and the bike and he'd already gone like he was already ahead of Darcy when Darcy got up, threw the backpack and then he ran towards the moving car. Like the car wasn't stationary at all. You know what I mean? He threw the backpack to me and I would never have, I didn't think anything was in it. Now, obviously there is no way to know what was in Darcy's backpack or what his intention was when throwing it. But since Michael Bryant gave his perception of Darcy's intention, here's Victoria's as a counterbalance since she actually picked the backpack up. But remember, neither have been tested at trial. So when you picked the backpack up, did it feel like it had a heavy bike lock in it?

No, it didn't. No, because I had it on my arm and I had the bike in the other arm, like I was carrying the bike in my right hand, his backpack over my shoulder until the guy who caught up with me, because Steve was on the 911 call behind us on the pavement. He was talking to them. And I just, I don't know what I even thought. Why did I pick it up? Why talking to them and I just I don't know what I even thought why did I pick it up why did I even move it I don't know I just I just felt he was on the other side and I didn't want him to have to come back for it it was so ridiculous I just picked it up handed and the guy said I'll help you do you want me to take something and I gave him the backpack and obviously like your perception of whether there was a bike lock in the backpack is not a categorical statement that there wasn't a bike lock. But also, neither was Michael Bryant's. He could not categorically state.

No, because he wouldn't know. There's no way he could know because how would you know? If I threw my bag at you, you wouldn't know it was in it. I didn't know what was in the bag. And it didn't cross my mind anything was in the bag. It wasn't violent. Like it really wasn't violent at all. It was quiet. It was actually really bizarre. So when Darcy threw his backpack, did you feel like he was throwing it in the direction of Michael Bryant or just? No, me, a hundred percent. He was throwing it at me he was looking at me

he looked he just you know when like it was so unbelievable what happened you could see he was thinking like what the hell this guy has rammed into me made me go right over his like fall onto the hood of his car fall onto the floor and now he's driving off. I could see that. You know, I'd be mad if someone did that to me. Like, it was, and I think he was just, he just looked, he looked in disbelief that that had happened. You know, it wasn't, and he definitely, he threw his bag to me or to, you know, where I was standing.

Journalist Jennifer Wells also had some questions for the special prosecutor's local agent. She asked Mark Sandler about the video surveillance, pointing out that he had referred to that evidence as the most important in the case, despite it being so inconclusive. The Crown had cited independent video experts, who reached a different conclusion to the experts who wrote the Collision Reconstruction Report. So if the most important evidence in the case was polarizing and inconclusive, did the Crown consider re-interviewing the eyewitnesses at hand for clarification? Mark Sandler's reply was that they normally don't go back and start re-interviewing all the eyewitnesses at this stage of the process, adding that the interviews he did conduct at Richard Peck's direction were of Michael Bryant, his wife, and interviews and information given to them by the defence, which is of course the Scopoliti evidence, those six motorists.

He was also asked if the statements given by Michael Bryant and Susan Abramovich seven months after Darcy Alan Shepard's death were taken under oath. He replied, I can't remember if they were sworn, they probably weren't. As we've explained, they weren't. Back to the surveillance video line of questioning, the journalist also asked Mark Sandler how was it that the opinion of the independent video expert cited by the Crown was so different to the conclusion reached by the collision reconstruction experts. He responded that the frame-by-frame breakdown of the video surveillance footage was commissioned by Michael Bryant's defence team, with the same video expert who testified at a recent

commission of inquiry, and that expert had been made available to the Crown for an interview about his findings, which was conducted by Richard Peck. Mark Sandler stated that he wasn't involved in the process, and added that the Crown also retained its own video expert. Crown's expert is, what their contribution was, or which video expert was responsible for the opinions that informed Richard Peck's presentation in court that day. All we have to go off is that Mark Sandler referenced the frame-by-frame breakdown by the defense's expert, who was made available to the Crown. But what he didn't mention was that that same video expert was actually discredited by the commissioner in that same inquiry. The video expert's name is Grant Fredericks, a retired Vancouver police officer turned video analyst instructor and expert witness in criminal trials. Here's a quick rundown of what happened and how his evidence was discredited. The inquiry was about the 2007 case of Polish immigrant Robert Jekanski, who was tasered by

the RCMP at Vancouver International Airport. The 40-year-old man died of cardiac arrest minutes later, and the Crown made a decision not to press charges against the RCMP, saying the evidence fell short and there's not a substantial likelihood of conviction in this case. After much public uproar, the Braidwood Commission and Inquiry was established to determine if charges should have been laid. There was video of the incident that had been recorded by an eyewitness, and Grant Fredericks was called as a video expert to testify in defence of the RCMP at that inquiry, that the use of taser was justified. Fredericks testified in 2009, the same year of Darcy Alan Shepard's death, giving the opinion that the video showed that Robert Jekanski took three distinct steps towards one of the RCMP officers, evidence of aggression that allowed the RCMP to justify their use of Taser.

of Taser. But the lawyer on the other side, representing the government of Poland, brought in two independent experts of their own, who separately pointed out that Grant Frederick's verification methodology and analysis was flawed. In his final report, Inquiry Commissioner and retired BC Supreme Court Justice Thomas Braidwood sided with the two experts who pointed out those flaws and went even further to discount the opinion of Fredericks completely, determining that he didn't have the expertise necessary to reach the conclusions he presented, and quote, his opinion deserves no greater weight than the opinion of any other careful observer. And also, the Commissioner added that he personally watched the video multiple times

and couldn't see any steps taken forward, let alone three. The inquiry concluded that the RCMP's use of taser was unjustified. that the RCMP's use of taser was unjustified. In response to that, it was announced that a special independent prosecutor would be appointed to review the inquiry report and determine whether criminal charges should be laid on the RCMP. And that special prosecutor was Richard Peck. The announcement was made in June 2010,

a month after the court proceeding where Michael Bryant's charges were withdrawn. Now obviously the inquiry was done and dusted by the time it was handed to Richard Peck to review, so it wasn't him who hired Grant Fredericks for the inquiry. And when it came to Michael Bryant's case, we know it was his defence team led by Marie Hennon who hired the video expert. But Richard Peck's review of the inquiry findings would no doubt have included Grant Fredericks' discredited testimony and the inquiry commissioner's critical comments. At first, Peck indicated that the decision to not lay charges on the RCMP should be revisited, but the following year he announced that he had

arrived at the same conclusion as the original Crown prosecutors in that case, that there was no substantial likelihood of conviction. He declined to recommend criminal charges against the RCMP for what they did in the death of Robert Jekanski, instead recommending that the members be charged with perjury as a result of what they said at the public inquiry. The Braidwood inquiry hearings were in 2009, but the Commissioner's final report was dated May 2010, the same month as the court proceeding where Michael Bryant's charges were withdrawn. It's not known if Richard Peck knew that the video expert made available to him by Michael Bryant's defense, a video expert that he then interviewed, had known credibility issues.

And it's not known if he knew that the Braidwood Inquiry Commissioner had discredited his testimony at that point. Michael Bryant wrote in his memoir, 28 Seconds, that when it came to getting the charges dropped, obtaining watertight expert evidence was the linchpin. And he states that the seminal expert was the video expert who quote took what the police had provided all those videos of shadows and figures and the Saab and its headlights and made sense of it he was able to break down the event to one one hundredth

of a second. Michael Bryant states that Marie Hennen, his lawyer, took all that expert evidence and had even more experts peer review their video expert's report to ensure that all the evidence was watertight. And that is how she calculated that the entire incident, from the moment that Darcy Alan Shepard pulled in front of the Saab to the moment when he was dislodged from it took 28 seconds. There's no way to know who any of these video experts are, except Grant Fredericks, whose frame-by-frame analysis Mark Sandler specifically referenced when Jennifer Wells asked him about those video experts. Sandler mentioned he had testified at the inquiry, but there was no mention that that testimony had been discredited. And additionally,

it should be noted that this was not the first or only time that Grant Frederick's credibility had been called into question. In fact, in 2009, the same year of Darcy Alan Shepard's death, he ruffled many feathers in a case known as United States of America v. Carl F. Thompson Jr., a case where a New York City police officer was charged with excessive force in the death of a man named Otto Zim. It would take much more time than we have available to explain the entire story, but according to a 2012 US federal court filing, after Fredericks viewed the excerpts of the video shown in the media, he contacted the police department unsolicited to offer his favorable opinion as a video expert.

to offer his favorable opinion as a video expert. In the court filing, he was accused of reaching that conclusion before he had finished his full analysis of the video, and he was also accused of changing his report between versions. Elsewhere in the court document, it states, the United States submitted to the district court extensive documentary evidence that Frederick's it states, And then in 2014, 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who was black, was killed in Cleveland, Ohio by a 26-year-old police officer who was white. Grant Fredericks was called as an expert video witness in defense of the officer, and when his analysis was released publicly, it quickly drew criticism, prompting Tamir Rice's family to release a statement through their lawyer,

stating that the video continues to reveal that police officers rushed upon the 12-year-old without assessing the situation, and it also shows that the officers didn't administer first aid while Tamir lay bleeding and dying on the ground. Yet, quote, The frames contain editorial comments that attempt to make excuses for the ground. Yet, quote, the frames contain editorial comments that attempt to make excuses for the officers, comments which were authored by Grant Fredericks. It is a long and involved rabbit hole that we don't have time to go down, but it's certainly food for thought when it comes to the video analysis in the case of Darcy Alan Shepard and those things that the video experts reportedly saw, like the luminosity of the

headlights which the court heard could be explained by the car stalling and being restarted, or when the video expert was cited as saying the video shows no contact between the Saab and Darcy's bike, which is not consistent with the statements of both Steve and Victoria, who both reported that the car moved onto the back of the bike, knocking the bike over and jostling Darcy. We'll see you next time. Yes, we can deliver that. Uber Eats. Get almost almost anything. Order now. Product availability may vary by region. See app for details. The 2013 long-form article Lost Boys by Jennifer Wells for the Toronto Star ends with a mention that Michael Bryant joined the roster at the National Speakers Bureau, and the summary for his chosen speaking topic started, quote, In this gripping presentation, Bryant chronicles the fateful aftermath of that late summer evening in August 2009, an evening when everything changed. It appeared that Michael Bryant was planning to monetize his side of the story

in the incident that caused Darcy Ellen Shepard's death as a professional storyteller, a public speaker, for hire. a public speaker for hire. The following year, 2014, Special Prosecutor Richard Peck was awarded a very prestigious award, the G. Arthur Martin Criminal Justice Medal for Outstanding Contributions to Criminal Justice. The lawyer the award is named after is considered an expert on criminal law and has been called the greatest criminal lawyer Canada has produced. Now, Richard Peck is also a highly respected criminal defence lawyer who practices in British Columbia, and he does have some very notable wins. He represented the accused Air India bomber Ajab Singh Bagri, who was acquitted in 2005. And four years before that, in 2001, he defended John Robin Sharp in a landmark case that ended up challenging Canada's child pornography laws in the Supreme Court. But it was soon pointed out that this particular medal is awarded by the Ontario Criminal Lawyers Association.

Richard Peck is not licensed to practice in Ontario, which is a reason why when he's hired by the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General as Special Prosecutor, he appoints a licensed local representative, who in this case was Mark Sandler. And even though he practices as a criminal defence lawyer in British Columbia, Richard Pick's only work in Ontario appears to be as a special independent prosecutor. If it all sounds a bit conspiratorial, it became slightly less so when the following year, 2015, it was Mark Sandler who was awarded the prestigious medal. He is a criminal defense lawyer who practices in Ontario, but the optics of these two appointments in successive years was troublesome to some, as cycling advocate Joe Hendry wrote about for Now Toronto. He argued that in the province of Ontario, the criminal defense work that Sandler and Peck are most known for is the Michael Bryant case, where they acted as special independent prosecutors. He questioned, quote,

Did they receive the medal in part for their work on this case? And there appears to be no way to tell. There's no write-up about why they were nominated and why they won the medal. An online search turns up blank. And even on their respective websites where the award is announced, it's just one or two sentences and it only states that the medal was for outstanding contributions to criminal justice. And to be clear, I'm not saying that they didn't deserve their medals or questioning why they should have won them. most wholly be attributed to what Michael Bryant wrote in his memoir, 28 Seconds, which was published two years before the first of those medals was awarded. You've heard it earlier in the series, but he wrote, I learned something about the criminal defense 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 wrote that his own defense lawyer, Marie Hennen, was able to consult with any number of senior criminal lawyers, including a couple of his own supporters who, as he described it, happen to be strong legal minds. Marie Hennin, who is a criminal defence lawyer in Ontario, has never been awarded the G. Arthur Martin Medal, even though, as Lauren Stile.ca put it, she built a defence so strong that the Crown dropped the charges before trial. And she has had other high-profile wins, including former CBC radio host Jian Goh Meshi,

who in 2016 was acquitted of four charges of sexual assault and one of choking a woman. and one of choking a woman. In fact, Marie Hennen had written something of her own that is notable. In 2014, two years after 28 Seconds was released, she wrote an essay that was published in a book called Tough Crimes, True Cases by Top Canadian Criminal Lawyers by Christopher Dudley Evans and Lorene Scheiber. Her essay titled Split Seconds Matter is listed on the book's back cover as a comment on the wrongfully charged. In an article written for LawNow.org, McEwen University English professor J. Mark Smith would write, quote, would write, quote, possibly because 28 seconds did no favors to Bryant's public credibility, Marie Hennon's essay, Split Seconds Matter, reiterates in broad brush the argument she made in 2010. She recalls an overwhelming pressure in 2009 to 10 to get the right result, i.e. to win the case. The full passage from Marie Hennon's essay reads,

The truth is that Michael Bryant was well loved by the legal community. Many identified with him, many knew him personally, and many were utterly grief-stricken over his situation. The pressure to get the right result was, to be honest, overwhelming at times. End quote. End quote. Michael Bryant appeared to lay relatively low for a few years when it came to public life. In 2016, lawandstyle.ca published a piece called Whatever Happened to Michael Bryant by Daniel Fish. In it, Michael is quoted as saying that he had no idea that innocent people were every day being treated like guilty people, even though he'd been the

Attorney General of Ontario. Quote, I had no idea that the presumption of innocence is a joke. Of Darcy Alan Shepard, it was the same story, Michael Bryant's story, a story that minimizes his own involvement. Although the piece did acknowledge that Joe Hendry's Bryant Watch blog was publishing pieces that suggest Bryant is more culpable than he was willing to admit. In the piece, Michael Bryant details how his own life changed. Quote, According to the Wikipedia page, Michael Bryant separated from his wife Susan Abramovich in December 2010, seven months after the charges were withdrawn. In that time, he said he became a regular volunteer at Sanctuary

Ministries, a Toronto charity that helps people living on the streets, a charity that he was told Darcy Ellen Shepard used to frequent. His experience there led to a decision to become a criminal lawyer and, as Law and Style put it, build a practice that would serve those on the bottom rung of the socio-economic ladder. And he did. In 2015, Michael Bryant had begun working for Legal Aid Ontario as a duty counsel, representing people in bail courts who can't afford their own. He described his plans for the future as more shifts as duty counsel, and over time, taking on more cases with a focus on the disadvantaged. And there was more. disadvantaged. And there was more. In a 2018 CBC News series called Do-Over, Michael Bryant claimed his work with Sanctuary helped him deal with Darcy Ellen Shepard's death. Quote,

That's something that is just with me all the time. He was a human being and he lost his life and that's something I can't undo and can't go back. So what do I do today? That's how I'm living. And before long, his listing with the Speakers Bureau had netted him a TEDx talk in Toronto that same year. The talk is available on YouTube and is titled Becoming Who You Are Meant To Be, with a description that reads, quote, Who are you? Where are you? Michael Bryant, a former Attorney General, answers these questions with brutal honesty. How a rapid climb up the ladder of success, an equally rapid fall, forced him to uncover, discover, and discard his false self, and to become the person he was supposed to be.

In the talk, Michael doesn't go into detail about Darcy Allen Shepard's death, although he does state several times throughout the talk that the charges were withdrawn. Instead, the story he tells focuses on what he did in the months afterwards, how he started volunteering at Sanctuary, how at first he felt uncomfortable, but then he made friends, including with one of Darcy's friends, which led to him working in a bail court in Brampton. He described the whole experience as humbling. You can find a link to watch the TEDx talk in the show notes. You can find a link to watch the TEDx talk in the show notes.

It is a decent talk with a decent message. It's clear that the underlying intent is to demonstrate his personal growth through self-reflection. And while he's clearly comfortable on stage this time, the opposite could be said for a portion of the audience who watched it, including Darcy Alan Shepard's loved ones. audience who watched it, including Darcy Alan Shepard's loved ones. The comments section has many people protesting the fact that he was invited to talk in the first place, with one notable comment flipping around the title of the talk, quote, Alan Shepard would have become who he was meant to be had he not encountered the old arrogant elitist Michael Bryant on Toronto's Bloor Street back in 2009. Sadly, his family and friends will never know. The following year, 2019, Darcy's father, Alan Shepard, responded in a piece for Canada Land with the headline, Michael Bryant did a TEDx talk about how killing my son helped his personal growth. Alan writes that while Michael attempts to portray a journey from the top of the ladder

to someone who now understands and cares for Darcy and people like him, few references he did make about Darcy were perceived as strangely affectless, referring to the man who died like he was merely a coincidental participant in Bryant's personal trauma. Allen points out that by Darcy dying in the way that he did, it helped put Michael Bryant on his path to redemption, to becoming who he seems to believe he was meant to be. During the TEDx talk, Michael gave some advice, which was, quote, Alan Shepard noted that this advice could have saved him. Hold that thought. Your second thought and your first action can be something else. Alan Shepard noted that this advice could have seemed profound if it were not so lacking in

self-awareness. Quote, Had Michael Bryant practiced that preaching, my son might not have died. To play on Bryant's TEDx rhetoric, the life he would have saved might have been my son's. He might have found a better way to become the better man he claims he now is. So, is it asking too much to expect Bryant could have acted then, according to precepts he proclaims now? Elsewhere in this article, Allen refers to the media, specifically citing a 2019 Globe and Mail article titled, Michael Bryant's Second Life. Once he wielded the power of the state, now he challenges it.

Here is how author Sean Fine wrote about what happened that fateful night. Quote, what happened that fateful night. Quote, As they drove home, a cyclist, Darcy Shepard, jumped onto the driver's side of their car, a convertible with the top down. The car swerved before coming to a stop on the wrong side of the road. When it started off again, Mr Shepard was leaning over Mr Bryant when the cyclist bumped into a fire hydrant and fell off. It should be noted that this piece was written four years after all the Freedom of Information documents had been publicly released, including of course the Collision Reconstruction Report,

eyewitness statements and 911 calls. The piece makes no mention of any of this. calls. The piece makes no mention of any of this. In a Twitter thread, Canada Land publisher and media critic Jesse Brown described the article as the Canadian press at its worst, pointing out that Michael Bryant's account has never been tested at trial, and it is contradicted by several eyewitnesses. He's never been cross-examined, yet his account is repeated as fact by the media again and again. Quote, The real lesson of the Bryant-Shepard story is that justice works differently in this country for some people. The fact that the media sees it as a story about one man finding personal salvation is grotesque. At the end of his article, Alan Shepard issued a plea to

the media. If they must tell and retell Michael Bryant's redemption story, he asked that they please speak with someone on Darcy Alan Shepard's side of the story for balance. As Darcy's father, Alan acknowledged that the media may deem him to be too close to the matter to be objective and credible, and quote, Michael Bryant was reportedly still working in the bail courts, but by that time, an announcement had been made that he had been appointed the new executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, a non-profit that advocates for the constitutional rights of Canadians. year, 2019, the Canadian Lawyer magazine named him one of the year's 25 most influential lawyers, an award that is voted on by other lawyers. And then, in October of 2021, the now 55-year-old was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Legal Aid BC. In an article for the Vancouver Sun, author Ian Mulgrew wrote, quote, once considered a contender to be Premier of Ontario, a chastened Michael Bryant is returning to his home province. The author acknowledged that the appointment might seem odd, quote,

another entitled white man hired to run an organization whose impoverished clientele includes minorities, indigenous people, and the vulnerable. That Bryant was described as having an overachiever's resume, governance skills, and importantly, quote, an especially relevant personal trauma and experience that gives him a unique, pertinent perspective. It appears that every time an announcement is made about Michael Bryant's latest high-profile move, it always includes a mention of how the incident that killed Darcy Ellen Shepard was now a personal redemption story. Towards the end of that article in the Vancouver Sun, the author writes that, quote, the searing transformation of Bryant's life, his atonement,

and his focus since has given him a deep firsthand understanding of what those in need have been through. Michael is then quoted as saying, I know that feeling a little bit because I was there and I know how terrifying it is to be on the other side of that window in those cuffs. Not only would comments like this feel like salt in the wound for the loved ones and close supporters of Darcy Ellen Shepard, but there are others as well. Others who don't even know Darcy but just don't like the injustice of it all, the lack of transparency. And whenever an update to Michael Bryant's story is posted, the comment sections, if they haven't been closed, are filled with people pointing out that the case was not so cut and dry as many media outlets portrayed it.

cut and dry as many media outlets portrayed it. Over the years there have been petitions created, interviews and documentaries started and developed, but nothing ever seems to come of them. And in February of 2021, Darcy Ellen Shepard's inner circle of supporters suffered another blow when cycling advocate Wayne Scott passed away after a long battle with cancer. Wayne was one of the people who convinced Alan Shepard to apply under Freedom of Information and he was also championing a documentary on Darcy's case. As for Steve and Victoria, she told me they were contacted by several different media outlets. She did an interview with the Globe and Mail, but that went nowhere. A TV crew for CBC's The Fifth Estate also interviewed them, with the same result. were released and it was clear that neither her nor Steve's statements had been considered or included in Richard Peck's explanation for why he was dropping the charges. She said she didn't

actually realize the extent of it until she listened to this podcast. I thought you know I'm just going to listen to this podcast now and when he started I was like I emailed I emailed maybe you straight away I was like oh my gosh this is like I can't believe I just started I was like I emailed I emailed maybe you straight away I was like oh my gosh this is like I can't believe I just was I was in disbelief and certain things that you said that I I I knew I and when you said it about the accident report that was unbelievable too no I had no idea I it was the first time and I actually only read it yesterday because I thought, then I thought, I'm going to read this and see what it says. It's unbelievable. How would they not use, how could they not use our 911 calls? We're the ones who made the 911 calls.

I had something else to ask Victoria. It's about Michael Bryant's side of the story, which starts at the main intersection before the block where the Midway Pedestrian Crossing was. He claimed that there was a cyclist picking fights with people, throwing garbage, cycling figure eights from curb to curb and generally impeding traffic, causing the other drivers to hang back until he forced a vehicle over to the side of the road, allowing Michael Bryant and the other drivers to pass. We've mentioned that this part of the story has never been corroborated by any evidence or eyewitness accounts. None of these other pedestrians or motorists have ever come forward. Stephen Victoria's statements make it very clear that a passive altercation was already underway when Darcy deliberately stopped his bike in front of the Saab. But there's a mystery there. What happened? How did this altercation start?

I don't have an answer, but I have discovered a possible clue. Victoria had actually mentioned something in reference to this towards the end of her videotaped statement, but nothing was ever mentioned about it again. Here's what she said. It was almost as if they had had some confrontation before they got to where I was, because there's no way someone would just stand in front of a car for no reason and say, you want me to move now, do you, kind of thing. You know, there's no way. So they definitely look like something had been going on one of the drivers from behind told me that he had like someone said to me who was standing with me he parked his car straight away he had seen me on the side he came over and said um that the guy in the black car had already had something go on with him earlier and that he'd thrown the bicyclist had thrown bollards in front of the car like what do you call them here

the cones yeah in front of the car before he got to me so that's obviously why he was agitated so when I saw him he was literally so close to the car that the car driver couldn't move so they definitely were they were agitated but the driver couldn't move. So they definitely were agitated. But the driver wasn't... He wasn't saying anything. That was the thing. It was just the man on the bike who said, you want me to move, you know, now, do you? Kind of like this.

And the driver just retaliated with doing what he did. He didn't say a word. Obviously, this statement coming from Victoria about what someone else said to her about what they saw is hearsay. It doesn't appear that this guy's statement was ever taken, because I'm guessing that if it had have been, it would have been mentioned as it is the only thing that appears to corroborate Michael Bryant's version of events, apart from his own wife of course. It's been 13 years since Victoria gave her statement, but I had to ask her about what she said in her statement about this man, and as it turns out,

he was the same guy who helped her pick up and carry Darcy's backpack and bike. So that was the backpack man. So he was driving. I think he was driving a car. I think that's what he said to me. I was kind of like shocked with what happened. And he had said that he saw Darcy putting cones in the street. And he just said that he thought, I don't know what he said. He said he thought that the car know what he's he really he said he's he thought

that the car had maybe cut him up or something but he didn't say it was like violent or anything like that he just said oh he was you know like he was pissed off and like as he was riding his bike he put a few bollards you know in front of the car but he he didn't say to me like this was a crazy road rage, angry, drunk person, nothing like that. From what he said to me, it seemed like, so he was mad and that's why he did it. But when we were, after I went over to Darcy, I took the bike and the backpack, the guy was with me. And then the police were kind of like dealing with stuff. And I practically had to say like, do you want a statement? And I said to them, you should ask that man with the backpack what happened before,

because he stopped his car and came to join me. And he obviously saw what happened before, but they didn't. And so he left. He must have left. And he didn't give a statement. Now, things were chaotic on Bloor Street that night, so perhaps he left the scene before the police could get around to him. But he never reached back out to make himself known, which is unfortunate.

But even if he did come forward now, 13 years later, and he confirms that what he saw was far less dramatic than how Michael Bryant painted it, it doesn't really affect the bigger picture of what happened in what he refers to as those 28 seconds or the aftermath. So what options does the average person have in situations like this? The first step was obviously to apply under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for specific documents. And while Alan Shepard received some documents, including the Collision Reconstruction Report, he didn't receive all of them. So he did appeal the decision. I asked him about the process and what happened. The basic process is to fill out an application and pay a nominal fee to the

Freedom of Information Commissioner or the whatever agency you want to get the information from and then you get it. there are many many grounds for the the government or the agency to turn down a request for information and then the next step is to appeal to the information commissioner whatever whatever reasons you have and the information commissioner makes a decision in this case the information commissioner made a decision. In this case, the information commissioner made a decision against giving me access to the information I wanted. And they gave me the advice that if I wanted to proceed, I should get a lawyer. And that means that the standard freedom of information procedures have finished and one now has to sue in court to get access to the information.

and one now has to sue in court to get access to the information. When I reached that point and got that advice, I hit a dead end from my point of view because I don't have the kind of money that it would take to get a lawyer and then have the lawyer pursue through the courts. That option still exists, and that's the one that I have hoped for the last 10 years to be able to proceed with, hoping to find a partner in the media that would take on the case as in the public interest.

But so far that hasn't worked out and I keep plugging away, hoping that I will be able to get access. Now, when Alan's referring to a partner in the media, we're actually seeing this play out here in Ontario as this series has been released. In 2017, pharmaceutical billionaires Barry and Honey Sherman were found murdered in their Toronto home, and to date, the mysterious case is still unsolved. When the Toronto Star applied for access to investigation documents under freedom of information and protection of privacy, and were denied, the paper then essentially sued the government for the documents, saying that it was in the public interest to report on what happened. And that's why there's been a trickle of documents released as decisions are made and files are unsealed. Large media

outlets do this all the time. They have budget for suing for access to documents when it's believed to be in the public interest and obviously aligned with their business interests. But when it comes to this particular case, no one has stepped up. After the charges were first withdrawn, Alan Shepard had told reporters that he doesn't know what justice is in this circumstance and he wasn't happy with the result, but he's also not sure what would have made him happy. That was of course before Victoria and Steve came forward, before the Collision Reconstruction Report and the other documents were released. And after years and years of processing, I asked Alan what he thought now. I don't think he intended, I don't know how you would prove if it it were true, that he intended to kill my son.

But his actions, which were inappropriate to the circumstances, resulted in the death of my son. Whether because of my son's background, not because of anything that happened on the scene, but because of my son's background, it was possible for the defense to make a case of reasonable doubt. I conceded that from the very beginning. But the question that I would put to you and I would put to your audience is simply this. A little mental exercise, since you all know the circumstances of both people. Put my son driving the car and put Mr. Bryant driving the bike. All other circumstances being the same. Does anybody seriously think that the same conclusion would be reached?

Again, my son's background, not what he did at the scene, but his background would convict him. And that's what's happened here. My son's background is a factor. There's no doubt about that. I've said from the beginning that given my son's background is a factor. There's no doubt about that. I've said from the beginning that given my son's background, I don't think that the Crown would have an easy time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bryant acted deliberately in the raised, that Mr Bryant was entirely innocent, that he was exonerated, that he was vindicated. Allen added, though, that his main issue is not with Michael Bryant, but with the Crown, who is, of course, the special prosecutor and his local agent. the Crown, who is of course the Special Prosecutor and his local agent. And not because the charges were withdrawn, it was the way the whole thing was presented. How the Special Prosecutor only had to say that the evidence existed, and it was put on the public record as though it was proven

fact. There is no option to appeal the special prosecutor's decision to withdraw charges, because they are set up to be independent from the government that appoints them, and they operate at arm's length. That's why the only option seems to be to hire a lawyer. Allen gave an example. Richard Peck stated that, according to video experts, there was no definitive contact with Darcy's bike but the collision reconstruction report said the opposite as did eyewitnesses on the scene. Steve and Victoria both said there was contact and the bike was knocked over. Surely we have a right to get access to the file to determine how and on what authority Mr. Peck said there was no

definitive contact because there was. Maybe there is information there that confirms what the special prosecutor said but right now there is an obvious direct conflict between the two and I'm not prepared to take the special prosecutor's word for that because all of the information that the special prosecutor used to justify his decision was information that was provided him by the defense. That's an example. There are many such examples of contradictions between the reconstruction report, which has not been tested in court, and the statements that the prosecutor made to explain his decision, which have also not been tested in court. So I believe, and I think if we could afford to get a lawyer to argue, the lawyer would be able to argue in the public interest that we should have access to whatever information is on the file that supports the allegations made by the special prosecutor

about many pieces of evidence that were presented. It's all good news for large media outlets and people who have the funds to hire a lawyer, but to everyone else, the average citizen, it all sounds pretty grim. I asked Alan what he would like to see changed in our justice system to increase transparency and make it more fairer and balanced for everyone, which is in the public interest. He said there are a number of things, starting with the practice of appointing special prosecutors, which right now happens when there's potential for actual or perceived conflict of interest. So while the government refers these cases to a special prosecutor to maintain an appearance of independence, it's not like they go to the

equivalent of a special prosecutor's temping agency and one is independently assigned to the case. We have to remember that the special prosecutor was selected by the same government who referred the case to them in the first place. Here's Alan. So that automatically right off the start says that the government gets to choose its own judge. It also gets to choose its own prosecutor. It gets to choose the proponent of laws and the proponent of facts to be considered against those laws. So the whole thing, the whole case is turned over by the government to a special prosecutor who theoretically has a firewall between him so that the government

does not tell him what to do. But how is that reasonable? There is, in fact, a conflict of interest, whatever is decided. You ask me or somebody will ask me, well, what's the alternative? It's legal in Canada and has been legal from the beginning and will continue to be legal. In cases where it's appropriate, a province can ask the federal prosecution service to prosecute a case. As the federal prosecutor in cases of potential conflict of interest can ask a provincial prosecutor to prosecute the case. And they don't get to choose who, all they get to choose is which province they go to. They don't get to choose who that prosecutor will be.

province they go to, they don't get to choose who that prosecutor will be. Another thing Alan mentioned he'd like to see is regarding the typical practice of prosecutors not explaining their decision when they withdraw charges. They are not required to do this, and he would like it to be a required practice that they do not, although he does acknowledge that people won't agree. I've covered cases before where the Crown has decided to withdraw charges with no explanation, and the lack of transparency is highly frustrating for many, so I'm typically one of those people who wouldn't agree with Alan. But after thinking about it, he does make a good point, one that I want to expand on. about it, he does make a good point, one that I want to expand on. In withdrawing charges with no explanation, it might attract questions about transparency. There might be outrage at the

decision, but when it comes to the public record, nothing is added to it except the fact that the charges were withdrawn. In this case, Richard Peck's decision to explain why gave the appearance of transparency, but in reality there were far-reaching consequences. As you'll remember, Michael Bryant wrote in his memoir that his team wanted to avoid going to trial, that was always their strategy, and we know that this could have easily been achieved by just announcing that the charges had been withdrawn. But what would that have meant for his reputation, since he was a highly visible public figure? The case was already polarising, and the public questions about what actually happened would no doubt have intensified. In fact, that exact scenario had played out in the months between

Darcy Alan Shepard's death and the court proceeding seven months later. In September of 2009, a man was stopped by police for speeding north of Toronto, Ontario. The man's name was Raheem Jaffa, and at the time he was a Member of parliament from Edmonton, Alberta. So when it was announced that he had also been charged for drunk driving and cocaine possession, it made the headlines. But the following March of 2010, it was announced that the cocaine possession, drunk driving and speeding charges had been withdrawn, and he would just be pleading guilty to the lesser charge of careless driving. There was no explanation given as to why, and according to an article in the Globe and Mail, quote,

There was an outcry after prosecutors withdrew criminal charges against Raheem Jaffa yesterday, leaving legal observers wondering what went wrong for the authorities. Now, just two months after that decision to withdraw charges, an even more high-profile figure with strong political ties also had his serious driving-related charges withdrawn. And if there had have been no explanation, that outcry no doubt would have snowballed. So the decision to provide that explanation was a good one when it came to Michael Bryant's reputation. There would be no outcry and no more questions. And as special prosecutor, Richard Peck had been given the ultimate trust and authority to be able to do this. But by distributing that

executive summary to an awaiting, hungry media, it effectively put the explanation for withdrawing the charges on the public record. And to be clear, no one was under the impression that it was a trial, nor did the executive summary imply or state that. The problem is that it appears Michael Bryant's side of the story was presented as the reason for withdrawing the charges, which was then repeated by most of the media as fact, without also clearly stating that none of it had been tested and proven in court by a trier of fact. And this would have been great for Michael Bryant, but the collateral damage when it came to Darcy Alan Shepard was immense. His past history meant that he didn't have much of a reputation to protect to start with, but it's clear that he was loved by many.

And as these people grieved his death in the context of the shocking way that it happened, they also had to bear witness to his character being systematically destroyed in the court of public opinion. And when it comes to Michael Bryant hiring a crisis communication firm, it is what anyone else in his position would have done. But planting false narratives in the media, like Darcy grabbing the wheel and wrestling for control of the car, is not typical, nor should it be condoned. And after that May 2010 court proceeding, with help from the media, Darcy Alan Shepard was reduced to nothing more than a big, drunk and raging beast who attacked a terrified and panicked

Michael Bryant, unprovoked. Taking a look back in hindsight, it appears that Darcy was considered an undesirable, someone unimportant in the grand scheme of things, someone whose life didn't matter as much, who was ripe for scapegoating in the incident that caused his own death because he was already dead. He couldn't protest or complain. So when, several years later, his father got that collision reconstruction report, written by more than 50 experts, who concluded there was no evidence that Darcy attacked Michael Bryant in any way, There was no evidence that Darcy attacked Michael Bryant in any way, and also concluded that both men shared responsibility in the incident that caused his death. Imagine how that must have felt. Darcy was not blameless, but neither was Michael. Here's Alan again. And that's what I object to.

That my son should be demonized to the point that many people call and say, well, he was drunk. What would you do if a drunk jumped into your car and tried to grab your steering wheel? As you established very clearly near the beginning, that never happened. That was part of the defense. That never happened. That was part of the defense. I've had this pointed out to me as well, that Michael Bryant must have been terrified when someone latched onto his car. And I don't doubt that he was. But what seems to be forgotten is that even in his sanitized retelling, Darcy only latched onto the car after the car accelerated into him, after he was carried

forward two car lengths on the hood, dumping him on the road, crumpling his bike underneath, and then reversing to drive away. And other than Michael Bryant's statement, it appears that the only evidence of anything that Darcy said or did before that was pulling in front of the Saab and not taking off as soon as the light turned green with a turning of his head and a passive-aggressive comment as he and his bike faced forward the whole time and it seems that before that he might have moved some traffic cones or pylons on the road. How can that be considered a justification for a car accelerating into a cyclist? I've stated many times that none of this evidence has been tested in court, including the collision reconstruction report,

but it should have. The report concluded that both men shared responsibility in the incident that caused Darcy Allen Shepard's death. I'll quote again. 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 also is responsible for his actions that led up to the concluding incident. All of these incidents were unfortunate and avoidable. Darcy Alan Shepard was not a perfect victim, and no one denies his past or criminal history. But he was a human being, and he deserved better than the manipulation and calculated choices that appear to have been made

to place all the blame on him, while completely erasing the other party's involvement and their culpability. One of the cornerstones of the Canadian justice system is that not only must justice be done, but it must also be seen to be done. I don't know what justice would be in this situation, nor do I think my opinion matters. What I will say is that it was most definitely not seen to be done in this case. Each year on the anniversary of Darcy's death, a memorial gathering has been held to remember him, but the feeling of hopelessness grows more and more with each year. No matter what documents and information has been uncovered and released into the public domain, those who wield the power to make changes often have no appetite to make those changes unless it is beneficial to them.

And that's why the status quo often continues. My final question to Alan Shepard was this. Has Michael Bryant ever apologised to you for his role in Darcy's death or reached out at all? He reached out to me a couple of years afterward and I, in fact, did meet with him and two of my colleagues in this sort of journey, Joe Henry and Wayne Scott, were with me because I

didn't want to meet with Mr. Bryant alone. Mr. Bryant did not apologize in any way to me that it was meaningful. I realized as we were going through, and I believe he may have admitted to it, but if not, that doesn't matter. He was, in fact, simply meeting with me to make amends according to the ninth step of the AA program. It was for his benefit. So, yes, he did meet, but any words that he says about indulgences or whatever are meaningless to me as long as he adopts a position that nothing that he did caused anything that happened on the evening that my son died. And that everything that happened was a result of what my son did.

As long as that's Mr. Bryant's position, anything that he says to me by way of apology is empty. It doesn't mean anything. If he would ever say to me, yes, I made some mistakes, I'm sorry, I would accept that. He made no mistake. The only apology he can make is

that, yes, I made some mistakes. Your son made some mistakes. I son made some mistakes. I regret what I did. And I'm sorry. But he just, he thinks my son and his lawyer and the Crown prosecutor think my son is some kind of demon out of hell that he was unfortunate to have encountered.

This six-part series might almost be finished, but it won't be the last you'll hear about Darcy Alan Shepard. As you'll remember, he was the oldest of three children who were put in foster care. Darcy and his younger brother David ended up with Alan Shepard's family, but their younger sister, who was only a baby, was sent to a different family. Her name was Chantal Gail Savard, and sadly, she's now on the list of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. In 2013, the 34-year-old mother was found unresponsive outside a home about 400 kilometres northwest of Edmonton. An autopsy concluded that her death was a homicide and almost 10 years later, the family still has

no answers. In early June, I was alerted to a news article where Chantel's daughter, Michelle, issued a plea to the public to help. In an RCMP news release, she said, quote, it's been nine years since my mum was taken from us. Nine years, and the wound is still as fresh as it was when they gave me the news. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any information about Chantal or the circumstances of her death, but I do want to look into it. In the meantime, there's a link in the show notes to see the news release, along with the details of who to contact with the information. There's also more to come about the Scopoliti evidence.

It's been too much to cover in this series, but in an episode coming soon, I'm going to cover the original case from 1979, where a shopkeeper in Orillia, Ontario named Antonio Scopoliti shot and killed two teenagers and then claimed self-defense. and killed two teenagers and then claimed self-defense. His lawyer, Eddie Greenspan, now considered one of Canada's most well-known criminal lawyers, introduced evidence that the two teenagers had committed prior violent attacks. But a key difference in that case was that there were no witnesses and no other evidence about what happened other than Scopoliti's statement. So stay tuned for that in an upcoming episode. When it comes to this particular case, I also wanted to clarify that I'm not a journalist, so I don't work the same way.

I utilize what's already in the public domain and build on that if there's an opportunity or need. So while I recorded conversations with Victoria and Alan Shepard, and I've also chatted with Darcy's partner Misty who preferred not to be as visible, it wasn't until after I had finished analyzing all the materials that I had specific questions to ask them. When it comes to Michael Bryant, Richard Peck, Mark Sandler and Marie Hennon, there are no questions that I feel would be worth my time asking, so I saw no need to reach out to them just for the sake of it. There's something else to consider here though. For Darcy Ellen Shepard's loved ones, this whole

thing is intensely personal. They have grieved his loss for 13 years now. But for the group of lawyers, it's business. It's a job they had from quite a few years back, and I doubt they even know or are bothered that some unqualified indie true crime podcaster has been writing about it. That said, I've posed quite a few rhetorical questions during this series, and if anyone of note reaches out to provide answers or any other information, I'll commit to including it as a future episode as appropriate, like the case updates episodes I usually do each year. And finally, I want to request that you please do not send them any public hate or toxicity. That is never my intention in any of the cases I cover. Thanks for listening, and special thanks to Victoria and Steve, Alan Shepard, Darcy's partner

Misty, and cycling advocate Joe Hendry for his painstaking work on maintaining the Bryant Watch blog. To view the full list of sources and resources used for this episode and anything else you might want to know, see the show notes or visit the page for this episode at canadiantruecrime.ca. We donate regularly to help those who have faced injustice. This month, we have donated to the Bicycle Messenger Emergency Fund, who's active in Toronto providing emergency compensation to bicycle messengers who are hurt on the job. For more information, visit bicyclemessenger.org. I also wanted to say a huge thanks to the people who helped me make this series. Thanks to producers Hayley Gray, who also researched the case, and Aviva Lassard for

helping me to get started and creative direction with the 911 and eyewitness statement audio. A huge thanks to Eileen McFarlane from Crime Lapse Podcast. She's a legend for rush audio editing on the final few episodes, and of course, we talk of Dreams for audio editing on the first few, He Was Moving House. Additional research, writing, interviews, sound design and mixing and mastering was by me. We Talk of Dreams composed the theme songs and the disclaimer was voiced by the host of True. I'm now going to be taking a little bit of a break since my kids are now off for the summer. I'll be back on August the 1st with another Canadian true crime story. See you then. Thank you.