Canadian True Crime - The Rallo Family Murders [2]

Episode Date: February 22, 2023

[Part 2 of 2] The trial of Jon Rallo continues. Jon testifies in his own defence, but the crown would present evidence that suggested a very different version of events. What really happened to Sandra, Jason and Stephanie? Would there be justice in this case?This two-part series provides a snapshot of Canadian history at a pivotal time for both the burgeoning city of Hamilton and the criminal justice system.*Additional content warning: this case includes the murder of a child, although no graphic details will be given. Please take care when listening.This two-part series provides a snapshot of Canadian history at a pivotal time for both the burgeoning city of Hamilton and the criminal justice system.Canadian True Crime donates monthly to help those facing injustice.This month we have donated to Interval House of Hamilton, an organization that provides emergency shelter, safety planning and support services for women with or without children that have experienced abuse or violence.Look out for early, ad-free release on CTC premium feeds: available on Amazon Music (included with Prime), Apple Podcasts, Patreon and Supercast.Full list of resources, information sources, credits and music credits:See the page for this episode at www.canadiantruecrime.ca/episodes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Canadian True Crime is a completely independent production, funded mainly through advertising. You can listen to Canadian True Crime ad-free and early on Amazon music included with Prime, Apple Podcasts, Patreon, and Supercast. The podcast often has disturbing content and coarse language. It's not for everyone. This is part two of a two-part series. In additional content warning, this case includes the murder of a child, although no graphic details will be given.

Please take care when listening. Where we left off, John Relo had claimed that he woke up one morning to an empty house and a typed note from his wife that indicated she had taken the kids and left him for another man. In the two weeks after that, the bodies of 5-year-old Stephanie Relo and 29-year-old Sandra Relo were found in Niagara Region waterways, about 40 minutes drive from Hamilton. Six-year-old Jason Relo had yet to be located, but the following year, remains were found that a forensic pathologist confirmed belonged to Jason. But months later, there was a heartbreaking twist.

A suspected identification error meant the remains had to be exhumed. They didn't belong to Jason Relo, he was still missing. John Relo pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder. And at trial, the jury heard about his affair with Marjorie, a married co-worker of his from City Hall. That affair happened in 1975, the year before Sandra and the kids were reported missing. It's unclear if Sandra Rello knew about the affair specifically, but John's behaviour was highly suspicious and she was generally unhappy. In the second half of that year, they seriously discussed. separation and even put their house on the market for a few months, but after realizing how much

a divorce might cost them, they decided to try and work things out. It was now halfway through the trial of John Relo. Leading into it, the public were already outraged about the murders, but after the details of his confirmed affair with Marjorie came out in testimony, the backlash was almost palpable. Not only was John Relo accused of murdering his wife and children, but it was confirmed that he had also been unfaithful to his wife. The situation necessitated another bail hearing, where Justice John O'Driscoll determined that this heightened public outrage could not only put John Relo in danger, but it could also increase the potential for him to be a flight risk and take off. The judge revoked John's bail and sent him back to jail, but the decision was put

under publication ban until the jury were in deliberation. It was feared that this news gave undue weight to Marjorie's evidence about their affair, and that might lead the jury to believe that the fact that John was unfaithful to his wife could also mean that he was more likely to have murdered her. So from that point on, the jury was none the wiser that John Relo was spending each night in jail and was discreetly transported into court each morning before the jury arrived. The court had also heard testimony from John's other co-worker Julia about their work lunches and the intense way he supported her during her own marriage breakup. Outsiders may have viewed this as an attempt by him to blur the lines

in their friendship, but Julia maintained the relationship was platonic. That was in the early months of 1976. Sandra and the kids would be reported missing in mid-August of that year. The court had also heard testimony from Sandra's sister Janice, who had been babysitting Jason and Stephanie in the afternoons that summer until their parents got home. Janice thought John seemed to be flirting with her, but she wasn't so sure, so she resolved to monitor the situation. That same month, July of 1976, was a milestone in the Canadian criminal justice system. Canada finally abolished the death penalty. It had been 13 years since anyone was actually put to death, but it was now official. As the summer progressed, John's flirting with Janice became

undeniable. She was very uncomfortable, but she didn't want to be the cause of a rift in her older sister's marriage, so she decided the only way to get through it was to distance herself from her brother-in-law as much as she could, at least until the summer was over. When she saw him arriving home early, she would make an excuse to avoid him before making a hasty exit. But there was more. Janice testified that she had previously loaned John a true crime book about a notoriously sensationalized Hamilton trial from the 1940s. The book Torso, The Evelyn Dick Case by Marjorie Freeman Campbell, was published in 1974 and basically begins with the discovery of a torso near Albion Falls, one of those hundred waterfalls that Hamilton is known for. The torso belonged to John Dick, the estranged husband of 26-year-old Evelyn Dick, and when investigators found his teeth and bone fragments in the ashes of her home furnace,

Evelyn provided all kinds of wild explanations about what happened and who was responsible. At trial, she was found guilty and sentenced to death, but on appeal, her lawyer was able to have incriminating statements she gave to police excluded from evidence. And this weakened the case to a point where the evidence against her was circumstantial. Basically, her husband's remains may have been found in her furnace, but there was no proof that Evelyn herself was responsible for putting them there. There is much more to that story, but Evelyn Dick ended up being acquitted of the murder of her husband. So John borrowed this true crime book, and according to Sandra's sister Janice, he chose to return it on August 12th,

just five days before Sandra and the kids disappeared. And he had some thoughts he wanted to share with her, like the fact that he was impressed that an accused person like Evelyn could be acquitted despite the circumstantial evidence against her. The court also heard about a subsequent comment John made about the book to his mother-in-law Margaret, where he reportedly told her, quote, if you are going to commit murder, commit it in Hamilton. On cross-examination, John said that wasn't his own conclusion. He'd read it in a separate article and insisted that the full quote in context was, if you want to commit a murder, commit it in Hamilton. If you want to rob a bank, do it in Toronto. He also confirmed he read Janice.

book about the Evelyn Dick trial but denied he was impressed by it. As for Janice, her summer of trying to avoid her brother-in-law, John Rello, had been unpleasant and awkward, and the worst was yet to come. But before we get to that, we're now at the Friday night before Sandra, Stephanie and Jason Rello disappeared and the story behind why John was sleeping in the basement. He had told investigators that during a social evening, he ended up in the pool alone with another woman, which upset Sandra. He made her out to be unreasonable and too emotional. But there's a bit more to that story. Sandra was still attempting to work on their strained marriage, and her parents had agreed to

vacate their Cambridge home for a night to give the couple a short, kid-free getaway. Since they had the pull to themselves, they decided to double the fun and invite their friends and neighbours, Kay and Phil Scordino, to come with them. This was the same Kay Scordino who asked to borrow a bottle of alcohol the previous summer, and John deliberately touched her breasts. By this point, it had been a year since that incident. the year since Kay told all the neighbours and left Sandra humiliated. Evidently, both families had sorted things out, and John and Phil were now deep into their racket club business plans,

along with Sandra's father, Doug Pollington. The incident that sparked the argument happened in the early hours of Saturday morning, after the two couples went skinny dipping in the pool, a popular 70s pastime. Sandra Rello turned in for the night and then Phil Scordino, but their spouses, John and Kay, remained in the pool by themselves for a bit longer. The next morning, John insisted it was all completely innocent, but after everything that had happened over the previous year leading to their decision to work on their marriage, it must have felt like a slap in the face for Sandra.

She was beside herself, furious on the drive-back home. home on Saturday. According to John Rallo, that was the first night he slept in a cot in the basement den. And there he slept the Sunday night as well. And then on Monday, the whole family drove back to Cambridge for dinner and a swim with the grandparents. If Sandra's family members noticed any tension between the couple that Monday evening, August 16th of 1976, they didn't miss.

mention it. Sandra's father, Doug Pollington, testified that at dinner, his son-in-law appeared quiet and calm. When he heard that John hadn't gone into work that day, he asked him why not, and all John would say was that he probably wouldn't go in for the next two days. In fact, he might never go back. Doug testified that to him, John always appeared to be a devoted father who normally spent a lot of time with his children, but he did seem a bit distracted that evening. When six-year-old Jason finally gathered the courage to dive off the diving board, there were loud cheers from everyone, except his own father.

John couldn't have been less interested in his son's progress or achievement, which Doug thought was unusual. He also told the jury that he tried to initiate a conversation with John about their racket club business venture, but John showed no interest in that either, which was also unusual. Later that Monday evening, after the Rello's arrived back home, Sandra went outside to chat to the neighbour about couple's piano lessons.

Even as she was dealing with the hurt from this latest incident, she was still making earnest attempts to repair her marriage. And after that, neighbor Barb came over for coffee with Sandra and testified that all appeared normal when she was there. Barb didn't know it, but that would be the last time she ever saw Sandra or the kids. It was also the third night that John said he slept in the basement den. 34-year-old John Rello testified in his own defense for about five hours in total. Susan Claremont wrote for the Hamilton Spectator, quote,

200 people brave a snowstorm to fill the court. He is cool, polite, articulate. He gulps for control when he talks of the murders. In the witness box, John Relo maintained that he closed the basement door behind him when he went to bed that Monday night. He slept soundly and heard nothing out of the ordinary from upstairs on the main level of the house, where the bedrooms were. The first thing he knew that anything was amiss was the next morning, Tuesday morning, when he woke up at 9 a.m. and went upstairs. He told the jury, quote,

I thought it was kind of unusual that neither one or both of the children were up yet. Steffie especially was an early riser. She was up at the crack of dawn usually. Jason, when he got up, usually he would be downstairs watching television. I looked in Jason's room and saw he wasn't in his bed and nor was Stephanie. Or Sandra in our bed. Now, as you'll remember, their neighbor, Larry, Barb Swin's husband, left for work between 7 and 7.30 a.m. that morning, a bit more than an hour before John said he woke up. Larry noticed the blind was up in the Rallo's main bedroom, which was unusual for a family

who were usually still asleep. But Larry's testimony could still be considered consistent with John's version of events that Sandra had taken the kids and left before he woke up in the basement at 9am. But there was a second observant neighbour named Sterling, who woke up even earlier that morning and saw something unusual. Sterling testified that when he woke at 5.30am, He glanced outside and his eye was immediately drawn to a light that was on in the main bedroom of the Rallo house. The family was never up that early.

The window blind was also part way up and suddenly Sterling saw John Rallo in a white t-shirt, making some strange movements. At one point he appeared to be crouching on the floor as he moved up and down. and then he walked to the window and pulled the blind down. John Relo testified that it appeared the only things missing from the home were his wife, the kids, and his wife's wallet. He described how he felt when he discovered the typed note left for him by Sandra. Quote, I was absolutely beside myself. I thought things had gotten better.

We seemed very happy. The children seemed happy. John testified that he disassembled the furniture and ripped up the bedroom carpet, along with a bunch of underlay, because Sandra hated that it was stained and soiled. He said his hope was that Sandra would return and she would be able to buy whatever she wanted to replace it. That was John's version of events, but the court heard a different version of the story, and it likely started the previous Monday night after Barb Swin had coffee with Sandra and returned to her home next door. The prosecution's evidence suggested that John and Sandra got into an argument in their bedroom,

and John punched his wife hard in the face before giving her a brutal beating that likely left her unconscious. The autopsy determined there was extensive bruising on Sandra's face and head. There was a deep gash above her right ear. She had a fractured nose and some of her teeth were loose. There was also extensive bruising on her torso, forearms and thighs. The court heard expert medical testimony about some of the distinctive wounds on John's left hand, on the outside of his knuckle, likely caused by his fist impacting a set of teeth. The Crown's theory was that the noise of this violence woke up.

the kids. A great deal of bleeding had probably occurred in the bedroom and the kids may have witnessed the final part of their father's assault on their mother. Because Sandra had been missing for around two weeks before her body was found, the state of decomposition made it difficult to determine her cause of death. Her body was sent to Toronto for a second opinion and there was still no confirmation, but this time it was determined highly likely that she died from strangulation. The Crown's theory was that John grabbed a blind cord to strangle his wife, which was supported by expert medical testimony that one of the other wounds on John's left hand may have been a burn from a rope or cord.

The court heard that John likely used a pillow to suffocate both kids. The autopsy of five-year-old Stephanie's body determined, determined that she died from pressure applied to her face for at least four minutes. Pressure so firm that it caused facial injuries. Jason's body hadn't been recovered, but the crown asserted that it was highly likely that the six-year-old had met the same fate as his sister. The court heard that John took the bodies of his wife and kids to the basement,

where he stripped everyone naked and put their clothes in the washing machine. smears of blood were found on the walls leading to the basement and on the basement floor that were determined to be blood type B, the same type as Sandra. According to court documents, only 9% of the North American population had this blood type. This was the 1970s and precise DNA testing was still a few years away, so a matching blood type was the best evidence the prosecution could hope for. John then put one green garbage bag over Sandra's head and another over her feet. The jury heard that investigators found an open package of green garbage bags in the basement that had similar characteristics to the ones found with the bodies. John then stuffed his wife's body into a sleeping bag and tied it all together with rope and cord.

As you'll remember, when Sandra's body was found, John denied owning the green sleeping bag she'd been found in. He mustn't have known that the sleeping bag had a label sewn into it that read Jason Rallo. And there was more. Investigators noticed that the rope and cord around the sleeping bag had been tied in a distinctive series of intricate, complicated knots. Those exact knots were featured in pornographic magazines that investigators found in John's locked drawer, along with those letters from Marjorie, the co-worker he'd been having an affair with the previous year. The images and the porn magazines depicted a form of BDSM called Rope Bondage, which also features intricate knots.

It was content considered so hardcore at the time that it was prohibited in Canada. But the jury didn't hear the details about the knots or anything about the magazines, and it wasn't because the defence objected. At the time, prosecutors in Hamilton were known for their abundance of caution, and it was the Crown who decided not to present this evidence, because if John was found guilty, the prejudicial nature of it might give him grounds for appeal. The jury did hear about two anchors found inside the sleeping-backer, which were bought from a Canadian tire store,

the same store that John Relo said he visited that afternoon, but to replace a faulty light switch. A third anchor was found with five-year-old Stephanie's body, which had been wrapped in a green garbage bag and folded into a blue duffel bag. John said he didn't own such a bag, but it was determined to have come from that same Canadian tire store. The court heard that John had said that John,

likely did the exact same thing with the body of his six-year-old son, Jason. John testified that one of the activities he did that morning was the laundry. The court heard it consisted of the clothes his family had been wearing when he murdered them, along with the bloody sheets. After that, John moved all the furniture out of the main bedroom into the hallway, and then he began ripping up the carpet and underlay. This is likely those strange movements that neighbour Sterling saw through the window at 5.30 a.m. When investigators entered the house two days later, they found it in a total state of disarray. The mattress from the main bedroom was leaning up against a wall in the hallway,

and there was a pillowcase covering part of the mattress underlay that had been cut out. There was evidence of blood stains on the mattress cover, consistent, with an attempt to wash out blood. After the bedroom was reassembled by investigators, it appeared that the part of the mattress with the blood stains had been directly above a section of carpet that had also been ripped off. It appeared that a lot of bleeding happened on that mattress.

John had provided an explanation for the blood on the carpet, and he also tried to explain away these stains on the mattress and underlay. He claimed that Sandra had hemorrhaged on the bed years earlier after she gave birth to Stephanie, and she'd actually cut out parts of the mattress and underlay herself. And at another point, he claimed that Sandra had been playing with Jason on the bed one day when she had a nosebleed, and Jason started screaming because the blood was also coming out of her mouth. Forensic analysis of the blood spatter in the bedroom determined that, that the patterns were not consistent with blood dripping.

It appeared that the blood had instead been splashed with some force. More blood that matched Sandra's blood type was found on a door jam, the wall and on John's slippers. It was on carpet near the window and on the curtains, the sheets and the furniture legs. It was also found in the bathroom smeared on the forcet and counter, evidence of John washing his hands. John took a large piece of bedroom carpet into the basement where investigators found it with two areas of blood smeared on it

that was the same type as Sandra's. There was evidence of blood found in the water pulling in the drain, attempts to clean. Also in the basement was a desk, and on that desk was a typewriter owned by Sandra. The court heard from an expert witness that that is where John typed. the note that he would tell everyone was from Sandra. The note was unsigned. The evidence showed that

John then moved the wrapped up bodies of his wife and children into the garage and placed them in the trunk of his car. On cross-examination, he was asked about a smear of blood in the garage that matched Sandra's blood type, and he claimed she had cut her foot. John Relo always maintained that he went for a long drive that Tuesday evening to Toronto and then back towards Hamilton and out into the country before returning home. The Crown's case was that this story was an intentional red hearing and John actually drove in the complete opposite direction around to the Niagara region where he dumped the bodies of his wife and children in separate waterways. And according to John, after he arrived home at about midnight,

he decided to go for a bike ride and fell off, which is what caused those injuries to his left hand that everyone noticed. The court heard expert medical testimony that it was highly unlikely that a single fall could have caused all the separate injuries to both sides of his hand. And according to later reporting by the Hamilton Spectator, one of those injuries was a bite mark right near his wedding ring finger. It's unknown if that bite mark was matched to a specific person though. John testified that after he got home from his midnight bike ride, he decided to sleep close to the window in the living room, because, quote, if I stayed there all night looking out the window and dozing off and waking up and hoping again, if a car came on the

court or a cab or something and it was Sandra, I could see her and out the window. The next day was Wednesday, August 18th, 1976, the day that John started telling people what had happened. John testified that the first thing he did that morning was take the carpet and underlay scraps to the Glanford dump. But the court also heard testimony from a security guard at a different dump, the Upper Ottawa Street dump. He said he saw a man who matched John's description, taking three green garbage bags and two boxes of garbage out of his car. And it was at that same Upper Ottawa Street dump that the police recovered a section of carpet with dark stains on it,

consistent with an attempt to wash out blood. The carpet matched the bedroom and the dark stains were the same blood type as Sandra. On cross-examination, John flat out denied ever visiting that particular dump. When he got back from the dump, it was then that he visited Barb next door, the first person he told that Sandra had left with the kids. An hour or two later, at the Pollington home in Cambridge, John sobbed and covered his face with his hands as he told Sandra's parents what had happened. According to the Hamilton Spectator,

Margaret Pollington later stated she did not see any actual tears in her son-in-law. eyes. John then met with his high school lawyer friend and then his parents. His mother, Dorothea, went with him back to the family home to pack a bag, and after he returned to his parents' house to stay the night, he met with the private investigator. So now we circle back to Janice, Sandra's younger sister. When her parents told her John's version of events, she too couldn't believe it. Sandra would never just take the kids and leave without telling anyone. Now was not the time to continue avoiding her brother-in-law, and that evening, Janice decided to drive over to the home of Jack and Dorothy Arello to speak with John herself. She asked him

questions and tried to press him for more details, but there was no new information forthcoming. Janice would sign a written police statement about what happened next. John walked her back to her car and went in for a hug goodbye, and as he wrapped his arm around her, he slid one of his hands down her pants. The jury never heard about this alleged sexual assault, though. The Crown decided it was too prejudicial and would give John grounds for appeal. Those who knew John Relo well testified that as he shared his version of events with them that Wednesday,

he looked unkempt and disheveled, which was most out of character for him. But the next morning, Thursday morning, he was immaculately groomed and dressed again for his return to work. He bumped into Marjorie, the co-worker he had had the affair with the year earlier, who testified that they had remained friends after their affair. ended. When she saw him that morning, she said he seemed sad, as he told her that his family had disappeared. Early that Thursday afternoon, John received a phone call from police asking him to come to the station. The jury heard that he immediately booked a city hall chauffeered car to drive him there. But that wasn't all he did. Before the car arrived, he quickly drove his own car to his

local bank branch, and requested that Sandra's name be taken off their joint bank account, leaving only his name. These days, both parties would need to provide consent for such a change, but in the 1970s, the man of the house, the breadwinner, was considered in control of the money and usually taken out his word. On cross-examination, John said he had a legitimate reason for going to the bank. He needed to get a check certified so he could pay for the private investigator. Next, the jury heard the recording of John Rallo's interview at the police station, where he first mentioned the mystery man who had been calling the house. When John testified in his own defense, he said that the anonymous phone call started

in April or May of 1975. at around the time he'd started having an affair with his co-worker Marjorie. This is more than a year before Sandra and the kids disappeared, and according to John, his married life was severely disrupted, but by the anonymous phone calls, not his own affair. Quote, I would question Sandra at length about them, and she would deny anything about it.

John told the jury he wanted to believe his wife, but he became agitated because the mysterious man seemed to know some very personal details about their marriage. And according to John, it wasn't the first time he had suspected Sandra was cheating on him. In fact, he believed she was dating another man on that girl's trip to the Caribbean. His inference to the jury was that Sandra may have been the type to have an affair and run off with another man. There was never any proof of this, but what there was proof of was the affair John himself was conducting with Marjorie in the marital bed when Sandra was on that same girl's trip. In any event, John told the jury that the anonymous phone calls continued,

even after he said his affair with Marjorie had ended, and after he and Sandra decided to reconcile. On cross-examination, John was asked, if he ever called the police to report the calls or whether he'd taken any action, other than the story he'd told investigators about arranging to meet the man and then being stood up. He testified that he did tell some friends about the calls, but he didn't contact the police because he believed it was a personal matter. He said he wanted to believe his wife, and he just ignored the phone calls after that. John Relo told the jury that in one of

those phone calls, the man had accidentally revealed himself to be a lawyer. So on that Tuesday morning when he found Sandra's typed goodbye note that mentioned a rich lawyer from out west, John put two and two together. He believed these two men were one and the same, and this person was responsible for whatever had happened to his family. Because John Relo was the only witness for the defense, his story about the phone calls was never corroborated. There was no evidence presented to even prove the existence of this mystery man or the rich lawyer from out west, nor any motive given for why he might want to murder Sandra or the children.

The Crown's case was that this was a manufactured story by John, evidence of planning and deliberation. After the jury listened to John's recorded interviews, at the police station, an investigator testified about telling him that his daughter Stephanie's body had been found. John was upset and rubbing his eyes, but the investigator said he saw no actual tears. Another investigator testified about later that evening, when John was charged with first-degree murder. He wouldn't respond to the charges or answer any questions, and he appeared to be very upset, but this investigator also noted that he wasn't actually crying.

In closing arguments, John Relo's defense lawyer told the jury that the prosecution's case was circumstantial, and the evidence contained weaknesses and inconsistencies. Like the fact that a cause of death was never confirmed for Sandra, it was only the second autopsy that determined it highly likely that she died from strangulation. The defense described the testimony given by Sandra's family and friends as being underscored by emotion and urged the jury not to judge John Rello based on his infidelity, but to focus on the three counts of first-degree murder. The Crown's case was that John Rello planned and deliberately carried out the murder of his wife and children. The manufactured story about anonymous phone calls from the mystery man were evidence of that.

The Crown had called nearly 50 witnesses and reminded the jury about Marjorie's testimony that John told her he was prepared to leave his wife and family for her. And as for why John wouldn't just divorce Sandra, the Crown suggested that he was concerned that her father, Doug, might back out of their potentially lucrative business. deal to build the racket club. Apparently, there was a $1 million investment involved. And even if the jury had doubts about whether Sandra's murder was planned and premeditated, if it was suspected that John went into a rage and killed her during an argument,

the Crown argued that his decision to kill the children separately afterwards was still evidence of premeditation. The jury was reminded about John's son. story about the blood stains. His testimony that Sandra had a nose bleed when she was playing on the bed with Jason, and he screamed as blood came out of her nose and mouth. According to the crown, there was likely a nugget of truth in this story. Jason may have walked in on the aftermath of his father punching his mother in the face or strangling her, and that's what made him scream. It was one of the most sensational trials Hamilton had ever seen, and Justice O'Driscoll's charge to the jury before they

began deliberation was this. Quote, if the accused is the man who committed the murders, then you have before you a very cold, calculating, cold-blooded killer, who wiped out his family and then tried to wipe out the evidence. If the accused is not the person, then he has undoubtedly gone through hell on earth since he was arrested. The jury deliberated for six hours before finding John Relo, guilty, of all three counts of first-degree murder. Margaret and Janice Pollington broke down in tears when they heard the verdict. Before sentencing, John was asked if he had anything to say. He did, quote,

Well, my lord, in your charge to the jury you said the past 16 months have been hell for me. What has kept my head above water is that I know I did not do it. But more importantly, Sandra knows I did not do it. Stephanie knows I did not do it. And Jason, wherever he may be, knows I did not do it. John Relo was given the automatic sentence of life in prison with no parole eligibility for 25 years. But there was faint hope that he might get parole earlier than that. A month before the murders, at the same time the death penalty was abolished, Parliament also introduced the Faint Hope Parole Clause, which allows prisoners with life sentences to apply for early parole after serving 15 years of their sentence instead of 25.

The official intent was to motivate lifers to work towards rehabilitating themselves and hopefully reduce the risk of violence towards prison guards. So John Relo may have had his faint hope, but for the Pollington family, they only had one hope left and it was a tragic one, that the body of six-year-old Jason Relo would one day be located. At the end of the trial, Doug and Margaret Pollington told the Canadian press that their lives had been shattered.

Quote, there's hardly been a night we've slept completely. Everyone in the family has suffered nightmares with constant reminders of the kids. That was December of 1977. John filed an appeal in January. According to court documents, he complained that the trial judge had made several errors.

Firstly, that the medical and forensic, experts included opinions in their testimony that were beyond their scope. The Court of Appeal dismissed this. The next point was that the evidence of John reading the torso true crime book and his opinion on it shouldn't have been admitted. The Court of Appeal found that this had merit, but not because the evidence was too prejudicial. For it to have even been relevant, there would need to be obvious similarities between the

murder of Evelyn Dick's husband, and the crimes John Relo was accused of. The only thing it proved is that John Relo read a true crime book. Another ground for appeal was the admission of evidence about John's relationships with co-workers, Marjorie and Julia. With Marjorie, John's legal team argued that both parties testified that the affair ended about a year before the murders, so it had no relevance to the murder trial, beyond showing John Relo was of bad character. But the Court of Appeal found that this evidence was relevant to the issue of motive, pointing out Marjorie's letters found in the drawer that suggested the affair may have

continued for at least four more months. And Marjorie herself testified that John told her he was prepared to leave his wife and family for her. And as for Julia's testimony, the Court of Appeal found that it probably shouldn't have been admitted into evidence, because it was innocuous. It really only proved that she and John had lunches together and that he might have been trying to blur the lines of their friendship. But there was another ground in which the testimony of both Julia and Marjorie were admissible. The Court of Appeal pointed out John's efforts to paint Sandra as a matter of the court of appeal. as being the unfaithful one, the anonymous phone calls,

and his belief that Sandra was cheating on him during that girl's trip. He made those claims with no other evidence to corroborate his story, so it was only fair that the Crown be permitted to present their evidence to show what the real situation was. The private investigator had testified that John Relo denied ever being unfaithful to Sandra, which the judge told the jury, could be considered proof of a guilty conscience, and that formed the basis for John's last ground of appeal.

But the Court of Appeal pointed out it was relevant to a different issue, whether John Relo hired the private investigator in a genuine effort to locate his family, or if it was part of a facade or cover-up. One would think that if the effort was genuine, and he really did want to locate his family, he would have told the whole truth. Overall, the panel found that the evidence against John Relo was so compelling that there were no reasonable inferences to be made from it other than his guilt.

The appeal was dismissed. That was the end of 1978, and over the next five years there were several notable developments. While in prison, John Relo was introduced to a woman in Toronto, they began a relationship. His legal team took his case to the Supreme Court of Canada, his last avenue to appeal. It was rejected without being heard. This meant that his only option for getting out of prison early was the faint hope clause, and he had to serve 15 years of his sentence first. In 1980, John saw a photo in the paper of a boy riding a bike and was convinced it was Jason. It wasn't. The journalist tracked down the boy's mother and verified his identity,

and after that, John agreed to an interview with the Hamilton Spectator. He maintained his six-year-old son was still alive. Quote, I guess until Jason turns up alive or dead, I won't be convinced he's not alive somewhere, and I won't ever be convinced that Sandra in the ground in view of what happened in the identification of Jason. His interview featured a conspiracy theory he'd heard that he was supposed to be a secret crown witness at a mafia murder trial. The theory was that the mafia killed Sandra and Stephanie and then kidnapped Jason and took him to Italy to prevent John from testifying. It would later come out that John started that conspiracy theory himself from prison. John Relo was considered a model prisoner.

After serving six years at Kingston Penitentiary, he was transferred to the medium security Walkworth Penitentiary. After another six years there, he was transferred to the minimum security Beaver Creek Institution in Gravenhurst, Ontario. There, he received a visit from Inspector Norm Thompson, the lead investigator on the case. Norm had remained close with Sandra's family and knew how desperate the Pollingtons were

to locate their grandson's body. At one point, a psychic had told them that Jason's body would be found in the Welland Canal and the police divers were sent in, but they found nothing. In the days after John Rello's appeal had been dismissed, Inspector Thompson had visited him in prison. and asked him outright where his son's body was.

John said he didn't know. But it was now 1990, and the hope was that perhaps John had a change of heart in the 12 years since the last visit. Once again, Inspector Thompson asked where the body of Jason Rallo was. John said he didn't know. He believed his son was still alive since his body hadn't ever been recovered.

The following year, 1991, the Pollingtons were shocked when some of their friends told them they'd seen John Relo out and about in Hamilton. As it turned out, John had been having temporary escorted absences to visit with his parents in Hamilton, and by the time the Pollington family found out about the visits, it had been five years since the board approved John's application based on good behaviour. But no one had thought to inform Sandra's family that after serving just eight years of his sentence, the man convicted of murdering Sandra and their children was allowed out and about in the same community. There was palpable outrage. At a subsequent hearing, a panel decided John Relo was allowed to continue his temporary escorted absences, but added the condition that he was not to go within 40 kilometres of house.

Hamilton. The panel noted it was a difficult case to deal with because of the horror of the crimes John Rello had been convicted of and the fact that he maintained his innocence. By 1992, he'd served 15 years of his sentence, which meant he was eligible to apply for early parole under the faint hope clause. At the hearing, a parole officer described John as a virtually perfect institution citizen, who had earned all his privileges by carefully following the rules and reliably performing office work at both Kingston Penn and the Walkworth Institution. He had fulfilled his requirement to attend regular meetings for men serving life sentences for domestic violence, but he was asked why he didn't actually participate.

His answer was that he couldn't relate to the content being discussed, you know, because he wasn't a perpetrator of domestic violence. John continued to insist he was innocent and that he was still trying to figure out what had happened to Sandra, Jason and Stephanie and how it happened. The jury unanimously rejected his application. John Relo had always enjoyed the full and unwavering support of his parents, Jack and Dorothea Rallo. At one hearing, his father. Father Jack told the board, quote,

I can understand how Sandra's parents feel. We feel the same way, but we can never change it. It's a terrible thing to see our only son in prison. Meanwhile, Sandra's parents Doug and Margaret Pollington and other family members attended every hearing to advocate for Sandra, Stephanie and Jason. They actively campaigned to try and have the faint hope clause repealed, and Doug Pollington commented to the media that, quote, The pain is never gone.

I'm going to continue to petition if I have to, write, provoke, agitate. He and Margaret had started working closely with a now defunct advocacy group known as caveat that aimed to reduce violence by lobbying the government for tough on crime legislation and increased gun control. At the time, the Paul Bernardo, and Carla Hymolka case was unfolding in the same general area of the Golden Horseshoe, and the Pollingtons, through their work with caveat, directly supported the families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffey.

In 1995, John Rullo applied again under the faint hope clause. Parole officers provided more glowing reports of the 52-year-old as a model prisoner, which now included the news he had earned a batch of a bachelor. of arts degree in sociology. There were psychiatric and psychological reports tabled, indicating John did not show any signs of depression or anxiety, which his lawyer used to argue that mentally he was, quote, extremely stable. In fact, according to a summary written by caveat, the only conclusion in the reports that could be considered negative was that John was determined to have an above average need for control.

A psychologist told the jury that there were three possible explanations for his continued denial of guilt. One, he did it and he's repressing it as a way of dealing with the guilt he must feel. Two, he did it and has been lying for more than 18 years. Or three, he didn't do it. The psychologist stated that regardless of which was true, it was his opinion that John was unlikely to re-offend. Margaret Pollington, Sandra's mother, gave a victim impact statement explaining the impact of not knowing where her grandson's body was hidden and of John's refusal to reveal its location. She said, quote, to this day, the constant ever-growing fear exists in our minds that, the body of that beautiful young boy will never be found. When I cannot sleep, I come downstairs and look out my window and wonder where Jason is.

John had a car and a suitcase. If he wasn't happy, all he had to do was leave. John's application under the faint hope clause was again denied. All this time, John still had the same girlfriend on the outside. side he'd been seeing since 1979. He was required to disclose such a relationship to the parole board when he started applying for those temporary escorted absences, but he never did.

And it wasn't until the year 2000 that the board first learned that not only had John Relo been in a relationship with a woman for 20 years, but he was now engaged to her. There was some criticism of correctional. services for their part in withholding the information. John was now applying for unescorted temporary absences and the board told him that his secret girlfriend turned fiancé indicates a history of deceit. His request was denied.

By 2002, John Relo had served 25 years. The faint hope clause to get early parole was now moot and he was now now. on the regular parole track. He added an application for day parole, along with his continued applications for unescorted temporary absences. He was denied once, then again, and again. Quote,

The board continues to be struck by your continued denial, despite the overwhelming circumstantial and forensic evidence that supports a finding of guilt. Meanwhile, Hamilton's, Spectator journalist Marguerite Lynch had been communicating with John for years after she covered the trial. According to later reporting by Susan Claremont, John was amenable to her writing a book about it and they exchanged letters for a decade. But when Marguerite took her manuscript to the publisher, they told her there was nothing new for readers to learn. Her book

led to the same conclusion as the jury that John Relo was. was guilty. Marguerite was urged to wait for more information, a new hook or angle for the book. Perhaps Jason's body would be found, or perhaps John might have a change of heart one day and admit guilt, reveal where Jason's body was. In 2006, 30 years after the murders, Marguerite Lynch passed away. No new information had come out and her book was never published. The Pollington family still held the desperate hope that one day they would learn the full truth about what had happened. They just had to be patient. It was really the only option they had. Meanwhile, John Relo had broken up with his fiancé on the outside for unknown reasons. He was

now preparing for his next parole board hearing and was doing everything he could to be successful this time, including an application for assistance from the wrongful conviction organisation now known as Innocence Canada. They requested his legal documents to get started on analysing his case, but he failed to provide them and the application was dismissed. The parole board denied his application for unescorted absences, as well as full and day parole. A previous psychiatric report had noted that John, quote, presents in an emotionally flat and deliberate manner, and the board had often commented about the emotional detachment he continued to display. At his next hearing in 2007, John Relo would be described as the most animated he'd ever,

been. By this point, he'd been eligible for parole for five years and the 61-year-old broke down telling the board that he just wanted to move on with his life and he'd given up hope of returning to Hamilton. He said if he was given parole, he would move to Sudbury, a city in northwestern Ontario where he'd completed a two-month work placement. Sudbury was about five hours drive from Hamilton, so perhaps the board would be more amenable. At this hearing, John spoke more about his family and reflected on the time he was out on bail before his trial when he was seen visiting his empty family home.

He said he went over there to do maintenance, quote, I'd go into that house and walk from room to room. I missed everybody and I missed everything. Beautiful, kids, beautiful kids, beautiful wife. It's been. difficult. I know there's been psychological reports about a lack of emotion. I'd just sit in that house and really break down. I'd walk from room to room. All the children's stuff was there. I thought, be strong. I guess being strong means showing no emotion. In an opinion piece for the

Hamilton Spectator, Susan Claremont wrote, quote, John Relo is weeping. Not much, not openly, but enough for his lawyer to pass him a tissue. Enough to quickly wipe a tear from beneath his glasses. Enough so, for an instant, he turns his face away from the people who once welcomed him as family, enough, perhaps, to demonstrate to the National Parole Board that he really and truly does miss the wife and children he murdered 31 years ago. End quote. It worked. It was enough to turn the ship around. This time, the board granted John Rello unassified.

transported temporary absences, so he could visit the city of Sudbury and acquaint himself with his potential new home. Sadly, this was the first hearing in more than 30 years that Doug and Margaret Pollington weren't able to attend due to health and age issues. But Sandra's siblings David and Janice attended in their place. They described John's display as crocodile tears. In 2008, the Parole Board approved John's application for part-time day parole. It would be at a halfway house in Sudbury with strict conditions.

He continued to apply for increased freedom and full parole at every chance he could. Meanwhile, he'd been performing community service at a local used clothing store and was sure to notify the board as soon as he started a relationship with a woman who worked there. She attended the next parole board hearing to support him, and the board offered her a chance to comment. She said, quote, I don't see a risk with John. My outlook is, this happened 34 years ago. I don't know one way or the other if he did it or not. It's not up to me to judge him.

God will be the one to judge him. End quote. John still refused to admit guilt in the murders of his wife and children, which meant that parole decisions were a difficult prospect. The board had to assess the risk to the community in the event of his release. Correctional Services Canada continued to give John glowing reports as an inmate, and he was continually assessed as being low risk for violent re-offending. But how can a person rehabilitative,

without accepting responsibility for the crime they were convicted of. At a hearing in 2011, John Relo told the board, quote, After 35 years, I'm just tired of banging my head against the wall. I'm just tired. Nobody listens. The board noted that John's concern never seemed to extend to the horrific way in which his wife and young children were murdered. and despite his protests of innocence, he never showed much concern about getting justice for his family,

finding the real killer. Full parole was denied. That same year, Doug and Margaret Pollington sadly passed away just one day apart from each other. They'd been married for 66 years, and more than 30 of those had been spent fighting for justice for their murdered daughter and grandchildren. They had always hoped that one day

their son-in-law might finally have the heart to tell them where little Jason's body was, but they died without knowing. At a double funeral held in Cambridge, where Doug had been the fire chief for ten years before he retired, firefighters formed an honour guard, and the couple were praised for their tireless fight for justice. At John's next parole hearing in 2013, he shouted at the panel, quote,

If you're never going to give me full parole, just tell me, and stop this charade. Two years after that, the board decided to extend his part-time day parole, but told him there were continued concerns with his stance of denial, and this suggested his risk factors were unknown and unaddressed. The board also noted that. that his denial, quote, continues to cause serious psychological harm to the victim's family. The murders of Sandra and Stephanie Rallo and assumed murder of Jason Rallo could be considered the first high-profile Canadian case of what is now widely referred

to as a family annihilator. In 2020, the Canadian Domestic Homicide Initiative released a report called Homicide Brief Familicide in Canada 2010-2019, which studied 25 cases of familicide, or the killing of a current or estranged intimate partner, along with at least one child. The finding was that familicide continues to be rare as a proportion of all homicides. Family annihilators are most commonly white men, age 30 to 40 years old, and typically not known to criminal justice or mental health services.

They're also most likely to die by suicide afterwards, especially if they live in a rural or isolated area. The family annihilator is a distinct kind of murderer who commonly sees himself as the father, the breadwinner, his place in the family central to his identity as a man. He's often viewed by outsiders as a loving husband, good father and successful provider, but if that image is threatened or he perceives a loss of control, he can become dangerous. We know that a woman leaving or attempting to leave a relationship is one of the greatest risk factors for domestic homicide. And this is the case for family annihilator cases as well. Researchers have found there is often a history of domestic violence that wasn't reported to police

and only comes out after the crime as family, friends and neighbours speak up. But in the case of the Rello family murders, no reports of domestic violence were ever made public and the issue of domestic violence wasn't ever raised during any of the court proceedings, including the trial. John Relo argued this exact point when he tried to appeal one of the Parole Board's decisions to deny him full parole. He maintained he had no history of domestic violence, either in his marriage to Sandra or in any of his other relationships. One of the most widely recognised studies on family annihilators was by criminologists in the UK in 2013. They identified four main types.

The self-righteous family annihilator sees the mother as being responsible for the breakdown of the family, often because she's announced she's leaving and he wants to punish her. Even though John and Sandra Relo had discussed separation, they were for all intents and purposes

still trying to work on their marriage. John Relo doesn't seem to fit into the other three categories either. The disappointed killer wants to punish his family for not living up to his ideals of family life. This category includes honour killings, like the Shafia family murders, which was episode 32 of this podcast.

John doesn't appear to be an anomic killer either, who view their families as a symbol of their own economic success. The danger happens when that success collapses, like in the case of bankruptcy, and the family no longer serves this function. But John Relo had a steady job, there was no evidence of financial difficulties, and there was, of course, that lucrative business deal to build the racket club on the horizon. The fourth category is paranoid killer, who was motivated to protect his family from a perceived threat, for example, the risk of having his children taken away by social services.

John Relo is not the only family annihilator who doesn't comfortably fit into any of those boxes. The research continues and other motivations have been identified. The man might want to escape the marriage, be free of the burden of his family, but without the expense and complication of divorce and. custody and child support. He might have a mistress he wants to be with, or he might want to escape the burden of a new pregnancy he didn't want or can't afford. He might want all the family assets for himself instead of dividing them in a divorce. At trial, the Crown suggested during closing arguments that John didn't want a divorce because he was concerned that Sandra's father Doug

would pull his investment out of their racket club partnership, which was important to John. This suggestion didn't appear to be based on any actual evidence, though. John and Sandra had discussed separation, but it was more than a year before the murders. John's lawyer friend testified that John had asked him about the property rights of husbands and wives, and his co-worker Julia testified that John told her

the lawyer said Sandra would get everything if they divorced. John and Sandra reportedly agreed to reconcile after they realized how much selling the house and the divorce itself was going to cost them. And on that Monday evening, in the hours before Sandra's death, she prioritized asking a neighbor about couples' piano lessons. Even though she was hurt and upset about her husband's latest indiscretion, She was still being proactive in trying to repair the marriage.

Later that Monday night, Barb finished her coffee and went home, and she was the last person to see Sandra alive, apart from John. But there is no way to know what happened after that, no way to know what led to the terrible violence in the bedroom that evening, if anything. And Sandra has never been able to tell her side of the story. Many suspected that John Relo might have been waiting until after his parents were gone, and then he would admit responsibility for the murders. Jack and Dorothea Rello passed away within three months of each other in 2015.

They had been married for 74 years and had publicly supported their son throughout his trial and every year after that. John was close with his parents, especially his mother. As you'll remember, on Wednesday, August 18th, the day John started telling everyone what had happened, he asked his mother, Dorothea, to go back to the family home with him to pack a bag. She was the only person he allowed inside the home until the police entered it on Thursday evening. They described it as being in a state of total disarranted. array. Furniture disassembled, carpet and underlay missing. The mattress was cut up and leaning up against the wall, and there were blood smears found in the bathroom, the bedroom, the basement.

The house was not a mansion. It was a small bungalow consisting of a main floor and a basement. It's not known what Dorothy Arello saw that Wednesday night when she entered the home, and whatever thought she might have had about it remain a mystery. as neither she nor her husband ever spoke publicly about the murders. No one knows if they believed their son's story about his innocence, or if they chose to support him anyway. But it's interesting to note that John was their only child, and John's father, Jack Relo, used to work as a crime scene photographer for the OPP.

The first parole hearing held after the death of John Rallo's parents, was the following year, 2016. Sandra's siblings Janice and David attended, of course, joining many who held out hope that John would finally unburden himself and reveal what happened. Susan Claremont reported for the Hamilton Spectator that Janice sobbed during her victim impact statement, which read in part, quote, My family has still not had an opportunity to have a memorial for Jason, as we do not know what cold waterway holds his body. But here we are once again in the process of considering

offender Relo's fate. This man is so heartless that he will not admit why he killed our family and what he did with Jason's tiny body after brutally killing him. My brother and I will carry on trying to seek answers to these questions. John Relo was described as remaining stone-faced as Janice spoke. And to everyone's devastation, he continued to deny any involvement in the murders, telling the parole board, quote, If my position doesn't change, am I never going to get full parole? Because gentlemen, my position hasn't changed. Full parole was denied, and the board told John they would see him again in five years. As a result of seeing what the Relo family went through, a private

Members Bill had been introduced and it was now legislation, requiring unrepentant violent offenders to wait for five years between parole hearings instead of the usual two. Janice and David were shocked when in 2019 an upcoming parole hearing for John was announced, only three years after the previous one. The Parole Board of Canada was able to schedule a paper review instead of an in-person hearing, which drew criticism from MP David Sweet, who introduced the private members bill. He argued that the intent behind the legislation was that less frequent parole hearings would mean less retortization for the families of the victims, but the parole board had

failed to properly apply it, which led to the very result the legislation was trying to avoid. The Pollingtons were devastated when the court. they were notified. Janice told the Hamilton Spectator, quote, After all the years we've been going, we're not even invited. I can't believe something as significant as a full release would ever be done as a paper review. Meanwhile, John was now living in a halfway house in Sudbury for three days a week and in an apartment with his girlfriend the rest of the time. They had been together for 12 years by this point. In 2020, as COVID was spreading in halfway houses,

John applied for special medical leave for unknown medical conditions. He wanted to cut out the halfway house and just live with his girlfriend. Sandra's sister Janice wrote a letter to the parole board. Quote, He is a triple murderer who savagely killed my family. What is more detestable is that he now wants special consideration. He never showed any consideration or compassion when he killed my family. The leave was approved and John was allowed to live with his girlfriend for 90 days.

In February of 2021, John Rello was granted full parole, almost 45 years after the murders of Sandra, Jason and Stephanie Rallo. The 77-year-old promised to reside with his girlfriend, who he had been referring to as his common law wife. Sandra's sister Janice told Susan Claremont for the Hamilton Spectator that, quote, The thing that hurts the most is that we'll never know where Jason is. That doors closed now. John Relo has always insisted that Sandra had been having an affair with a wealthy lawyer,

and it was he who was responsible for the murders. He has always maintained that it's for that reason, that he's unable to provide the whereabouts of Jason's remains. There has never been any evidence of the lawyer or the affair. And to this day, the remains of six-year-old Jason Relo have never been recovered. Thanks for listening and special thanks to Gemma Harris for research in this series. For the full list of resources we relied on to write this episode

and anything else you want to know about the podcast, including how to access ad-free episodes, visit canadian truecrime.ca.ca. We donate monthly to those facing injustice. This month, we've donated to Interval House of Hamilton, an organisation that provides emergency shelter, safety planning and support services for women with or without children who have experienced abuse or violence. Learn more at Intervalhousehamilton.org.

Audio editing and production was by We Talk of Dreams who also composed the theme songs. Production assistance was by Jesse Hawke with script consulting by Carol Weinberg. Writing, narration, sound design and additional research was by me, and the disclaimer was voiced by Eric Crosby. I'll be back soon with a new Canadian true crime story. See you then.