Suspicion | The Billionaire Murders: The hunt for the killers of Honey and Barry Sherman - Trial and Error

Episode Date: April 25, 2025

A trial scheduled for one month becomes two. The Judge is not pleased. It’s now down to 12 jurors to determine Chris and Awet’s fate – but the lone Black juror gets sick so now it’s 11. Among the evidence the jury hears: false DNA evidence that’s not corrected; a transcription of Chris’s own words that is incorrect and not corrected; and the recollections of two police officers whose notes are strikingly similar. And then the jury comes in. At the end of the day, Chris knows that if he had stepped up and said he was involved in the shooting he’d have gotten a deal and would be out of prison by now. But there’s a reason he will never do that. Audio: CPAC, Ontario Jury Video, EatonCentreShooting, Global TV, Essex County News

I'm parked at 62 Silverstone Drive. It's just around the corner from where the shooting happened in August of 2009. And I've come here today on a beautiful sunny day, not unlike the day when the shooting happened, to have another look at the crime scene. I'm parked at number 62 Silverstone, and I've got a clear view of Mount Olive Drive in front of me. There's a school to my right, there are houses to my left, and this is the spot, number 62, where Chris Sheriff parked his car that day. Owett says that Chris parked here and the phantom gunman runs back and gets into the car. My purpose for being here today is to see what Chris Sheriff would have seen.

So he parks here in his car, in his Mazda, and looking to the left, I can see a row of townhouses. They're all at the municipal address of 23 Mount Olive Drive. The first one that I have a really good look at and can see from my vantage point is unit number 159, the unit that was Marjorie Boland. And Marjor Boland's a one who makes the 911 call that brings police rushing to the scene. Can you tell me the police full number? A gentleman just went by here. My heart's beaten so bad. He had a gun in his hand and there was shots.

I can see its gate. I can see the front door. And looking to the left is 157. I can see the gate of 157. I can certainly make it out. But going further left, I can't see 155. I can't see it at all. And that's the place where the shooting happened.

155 is obscured by a brown bungalow on the corner of the streets I'm at. It's also obscured by a big tree. And if something took place out front of that gate right now, I wouldn't be able to see it. And my concern was that Chris sitting here in his car easily could have seen a shooting. Whether or not he heard something, that's a different story. But he would not have been able to see the shooting. He would, however, have been able to see Owett leave his car, walk over there,

and then come back, whether he was running or walking. that he could have seen. But we know the shooting took place outside of the gate of 155 and from my vantage point, I can't see a darn thing. From the Toronto Star, I'm Kevin Donovan. And this is season

Season 4 of Suspicion Murder on Mount Olive Episode 9 Trial and Error On our last episode I took you through the weekend of Kim Gullab's murder that sent me back to the crime scene

because after nearly a year of investigating I still had questions being back there helped I do think Chris is hiding something but I don't believe he was part of a murder plot. If he was, why risk taking the family car? And if he was knowingly the getaway driver and the hardcore gang leader one police officer says he was,

wouldn't he have driven a different route to get away? Why head back to Mount Olive where the shooting took place instead of just taking off down Silverstone? Still, a jury convicted him. a wet too but there was some evidence against him there's a text message where awet asked someone about bullets for a gun there's hannah the young woman in the car who recalls owett saying he needed to stop somewhere before going home there's four particles of gunshot residue on the front of his t-shirt consistent with someone firing a gun and holding it under their hoodie as witnesses observed

And Awet's gray hoodie matches what witnesses say the shooter was wearing. Yes, there's one glaring inconsistency. Some say the shooter had braids, some say he didn't. And Awet had no braids. What tips it for me against Owett is his 11th hour story of a phantom shooter. The other witnesses don't support that at all. I think he made it all up. Chris is a different story.

Other than what Officer Nasser relayed from his two secret sources, nobody has ever said Chris was in a gang. It's more likely that the Hustle Squad was, as Chris, his mom and some friends have said, the nickname for their pickup basketball team. Then there's Chris himself. He'd been a top athlete, he was at school and working, was about to join the Carpenter's Union, had no criminal record. yes he had some friends police said had gang ties

but these were the kids he grew up with some he knew since kindergarten that samurai sword case didn't help him but it was ruled self-defense and it had nothing to do with the Kim Gullab case in this episode I'm going to take a hard look at how Chris Sheriff was convicted the judge the jury

and take another look at some of the evidence, including that DNA match, which wasn't a match at all. Let's start with Justice Eugene Uischuk. Hey, William, it's Kevin Donovan from the Toronto Star calling. Hey, Kevin, how are you? That's William Jackson, a Toronto criminal lawyer. I caught up with him when he was brokering a deal to get some guns off the street. Just had to surrender a few firearms.

This program was a brainchild of the late Edward Sapiano, a maverick lawyer, Jaxa worked with. The idea is this. People have guns and, for a variety of reasons, don't want them anymore. Maybe they're small-time criminals trying to go straight. Maybe their dad died and left one in the closet. Sapiano, and now Jaxa, arranged for them to be turned over to the cops for destruction.

It's not a perfect situation, but police like it because fewer guns on the street, that's a good thing. I reached out to Jaxa because I wanted the backstory on something else his crusading lawyer friend, Edward Sapiano, did. Take on the legendary Justice U.S. Chuck. It was a homicide, and Edward had asked the judge to recuse himself because he was biased. This all happened seven years before Chris and Owett's trial. Sapiano was defending a 24-year-old man accused of killing the manager of a strip club. He didn't think his client was going to get a fair shake. I knew Edward back then, and him and I were friendly and good friends,

and I understood how serious it was that he was asking a judge to accuse himself, at least legally speaking. Judges are appointed from both sides of the court, and U.S. Chuck had been a federal prosecutor. But judges are supposed to leave their bias behind when they put on those robes. It was well believed, at least in the dawn jail around that time, that if you were to draw U.S. Chuck in your block, you're getting convicted regardless. He would put his thumb on the scale and always tip it in the crown's favor.

The reporting on Sapiano's motion never mentioned anything about race. But his client was black, and Jaxa said race was the subtext to his motion to get Uischuk removed as judge. There's a disproportionate number of black men charged with crimes, and Sapiano thought the justice system was skewed against them, and Uischuk was the biggest offender. I tried to speak to the judge. He's retired now in his late 70s. I wrote him a letter, putting to him specific allegations about his conduct in the Chris Sheriff trial and other trials, including the suggestion that he was biased against accused men, particularly if they were black. No response.

Then I called him. Hello? Yes. It's Kevin Donovan from the Toronto Star calling. I'm trying to reach retired justice, U.S. Chuck. To be fair, it's a rare judge who gives interviews. Still, I'm disappointed he wouldn't talk. He's a legend, tall with a square face that looks like it was chiseled out of rock.

U.S. Chuck was nicknamed Tex because he wore cowboy boots under his robes, and lawyers joked he shoots from the hip. For Sapiano to take him on was professionally dangerous. Uischuk is the man who literally wrote one of the legal Bibles, called Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada. Here he is in 1980 when he was a senior federal lawyer speaking about the powers of police. Over and beyond that would be the question

if the police officer failed to inform the person of the right not to say anything at the time of the arrest and to be informed of that, If he failed, in fact, to give that to him as part of a caution, unlike the pressing law, which says that's an important factor to be considered into the determination of voluntariness, I would think that per se that would exclude the evidence. To me, he sounds smart, fair, balanced, leaning to the defense, actually. But after he'd been a judge for a while, defense lawyers started complaining.

Then along comes lawyer Edward Sapiano and his client. He was seeking a ruling that U.S. Chuck too often favored the prosecution. Edward had run around the bar asking for other lawyers to sign this petition and come on board and give affidavits and support him in this. That was very polarizing. This had never been done before. Some lawyers quickly jumped on board. board and we give affidavits and sign the various petitions to this effect.

Other lawyers ran as quickly from it as they could and or as public as they could to denounce it. Ten prominent lawyers signed on. Now, an oddity of our system is that if you accuse a judge of bias, the same judge hears the case. There were a lot of fireworks in court that day. You as Chuck wouldn't let the ten lawyers testify. He did listen to Sapiano's argument. Heard Sapiano say U.S. Chuck's 22 years on the bench was a series of train wrecks. Then Uischuk left the courtroom. Seven minutes later, he came back and delivered his ruling. No bias. On with the trial. The case did work out for Sapiano and his client, but for another reason. The prosecution discovered a credibility issue with its star witness, and the case was abandoned.

But Sapiano still believed that U.S. Chuck was unfair. The judge got a new nickname. I only ever remember Edward calling U.S. Chuck texts, but clients would call him U.S. fucked. Justice, U.S. fucked. This is the judge who presided over Chris and Owett's case. To be clear, the jury decides guilt or innocence, but judges are the gatekeepers. For example, judges rule on what the jury can and can't hear.

Chris Sheriff's lawyer, Christopher Hicks, was disappointed to get U.S. Chuck. I mean, he was, nobody in the fence by ever liked him, of course. He was terrible. He didn't want to see him come through the door. The trial lasted two months. There's high drama, even some humor, like the time when the gunshot residue expert is explaining that a few particles can be significant, and one of the lawyers says, okay, I get it, it's not like get out the vacuum cleaner, we've got a lot of GSR here.

And just as U.S. Chuck's big, almost larger-than-life personality, certainly dominated the proceedings. But when I drilled down into as many rulings during the trial, it looked to me. me like he favored the prosecution. I put that to lawyer Hicks. It's not so much, Kevin, I think, that he favors the crown. What he favors is himself. It's all about him. It's his show. It's what he wants to do. Now, nine times out of ten, it is going to favor the prosecution because that's where his ego and his vanity is, extremely vain guy. Just as U.S. Chuck didn't like Hicks, they sparred a lot, and Hicks pretty much always lost. His biggest setback involved Officer Nasser and his two secret

CIs, the ones who, according to Nosser, said Chris was a gang leader. The jury was sent out while the lawyers argued. Hicks said allowing Nosser to relay this information to the jury would be perilous to a fair trial. Jeff Haskell, who later represented Chris in an appeal for a federal review of his case, gives his impression of what just as you as Chuck permitted. The court allowed a police officer to come into the courtroom, take the stand, and basically say, someone told me that Christopher Sheriff is in a gang.

Someone told me that he's a bad person. Someone told me that there's this gang called the Hustle Squad. Yada, yada, yada, and it goes on. And then, of course, you can't cross-examination. Chris's trial lawyer, Hicks, then tried a legal tactic known as innocence at stake. To do this, he had to show the C.I.'s had information that would help him prove Chris was innocent. Maybe they had a grudge. Maybe they had a history of lying for money. The arguments got heated. In about the same time, just as U.S. Chuck took to rule on his own bias case from years before, he said, no dice. U.S. Chuck ruled there was no evidence the C.I.'s had information that could help establish Chris's innocence. Talk about a classic catch-22. Hicks needed background about the CIs to prove the information was needed, and the judge said he couldn't have it. Chris Sheriff said he had a sinking feeling

that day in court. That's what you say, this is the system. Because you can't find out who it is, they leave it alone, and they will keep that secret to the dime. In one tiny victory for Hicks, Justice U.S. Chuck instructed the jury that what Officer Nosser testified about gang membership and the hustle school, should not be taken as showing a propensity to commit a crime. But U.S. Chuck said Nosser's theory about infighting between gangs could be used by the jury as a possible motive for the murder. Still, if you put yourself in the shoes of the jurors,

it's hard to see them discounting Officer Nosser's testimony about Chris Sheriff being the leader of a very dangerous gang, and the sources would not be testifying. I mean, the Supreme Court of Canada's pretty much closed all the doors and windows on this issue, you know? C.I. is sacrosan. I've seen a lot of judges in action over the years. The nickname Tex fits. Justice Eutzchuk really does shoot from the hip.

Like when that photo was discussed in court, the one Officer Nosser says his source gave him. This discussion took place with the jury absent, so all sides could argue about what evidence jurors should hear. Chris says it's his high school basketball buddies after their friend's funeral. The cop says it's a gang photo. Justice Uischuk says, well, the photo almost speaks for itself. His inference, to me anyway, is that these are tough-looking guys and they must be in a gang. Chris Hicks says, I don't know about that. The judge shoots back. We'll see. several of Uischuk's old cases have been in the news lately, a decade after he retired. The appeals court found he made legal errors and the convictions were thrown out.

I decided to look at his career, similar to what lawyer Edward Sapiano did 20 years ago. I pulled the documents on the 41 murder cases he presided over that were appealed. In each case, a defense lawyer had argued that U.S. Chuck's rulings gave the prosecution an unfair advantage. In almost a third of the cases, the appeals court agreed and overturned the guilty verdict. Sapiano's friend, William Jaxa, happened to be in U.S. Chuck's court at the tail end of his career. He recalls a judge joking about how often he was reversed. I think he might have joked publicly about how the court of appeal is always telling him he's getting it wrong.

Even in cases that were not reversed, the appeals court found fault with how the judge treated defense lawyers and accused during trials. Here's a smattering of the comments. Just as Uischuk should be a listener, not a talker. His remarks were disparaging and prejudicial. He was insulting and demeaning. Reading those comments sent me back to the transcript of Chris Nowett's trial. I found the same thing. Justice Uischuk interjected constantly, doing his own cross-examination at times, which is not the role of a judge. In one example, when witness Narjit Singh was testifying in Punjabi, his interpreter said the car Chris was driving speeded up as it moved forward away from its parked location.

Justice Uischuk snapped, that's not proper English. the interpreter said that's what he said after further pressure the interpreter chained a testimony to say they drove away at a high speed yet Singh had simply been describing the car moving forward from where it was parked we'll be right back

Now I want to take a close look at the jury in the case. Race and perception about gang membership were key to how the 12 jurors were chosen. Juror, look upon the accused. Accused, look upon the juror. That's the court registrar at the start of the trial. We're in a courtroom on University Avenue in Toronto in May, of 2012. It's a limestone monolith built in the 1960s. All the big trials are held there. Chris and Owett are side by side in the prisoner's dock. The registrar in a black gown is engaging in a centuries-old legal tradition. The idea is, if you are a juror sitting in judgment of a fellow

citizen, you need to be able to look that person in the face. In this case, choosing 12 jurors from a pool of hundreds began with each of them being asked two specific questions. Here's the first, as read by a voice actor. The accused, Awet Asfaha, and the accused, Christopher Sheriff, are black. Do you have a bias, prejudice for, or against black persons to the extent that it would likely prevent you from rendering true verdicts based solely on the evidence? The questions agreed upon at the outset of the proceeding. follow in line with the tight rules regarding selection of jurors.

Defense and prosecution are each given up to 40 challenges they can use to dismiss a person without giving any reason. So 40 for the prosecution and 40 for the defense split between Chris and a wet side. Here's the second question. Secondly, the Crown will lead evidence in this case about membership and street gangs. Do you have an opinion about membership and street gangs? Do you have an opinion about membership and street gangs? gangs that is so fixed it would likely prevent you from rendering true verdicts based solely on the evidence to be tendered at this trial. Some candidates answered yes to one or both

questions. They were dismissed outright. Others were let go because prosecution or defense decided no reason had to be given that the individual should be excluded. It took several days. Jurors were warned at the outset it would be a one-month trial. That was a problem for some. jobs, child care, other pressures. One, a PhD student, was released because his girlfriend was coming for a visit. The success of that excuse really surprised me. My favorite exchange was the man who told Justice Uischuk that my Bible-trained conscience would not allow me to serve.

And I also have travel arrangements. The man said his conscience would be troubled if he sent an innocent man to prison or set a guilty man free. Then the judge asked about his travel plans. Trip to the Bahamas. Okay, just as Yuichuk said, go on your trip. Your conscience wouldn't like me preventing you from going. When all was said and done, 12 jurors were chosen.

11 were white, one was black. I asked lawyer Hicks if that racial makeup was typical. Well, no, you usually get more than the first jury than that. I used to, you know, try and pick a jury. A mix of race, a mix of age, a mix of men and women, and so on. You can't always achieve that. That's my ideal. That's what I used to see.

And, yeah, I mean, in Toronto, you get a jury pool, it's usually quite mixed. this jury. How, in a city like Toronto, with half the population non-white, does this happen? A court video that is shown to all prospective jurors promises that everyone standing trial will be judged by a jury of their peers. The importance of the jury in our justice system should not be underestimated. It's been an integral part of our society for several centuries. In fact, the jury system is the entire foundation of the justice system. It's a right for the individual to be judged by a group of equals.

I asked lawyer Hicks, what happened? I only have so many challenges, you know, to challenge people about being on the jury. You know, so that's the way it broke. Sometimes you get a rogue jury pool. It just aren't any black people in the minorities, visible minorities. It's not a conspiracy. This is a bad break. There was another bad break involving that jury of 12.

Deep into the case, one juror put his hand up and said he was sick and needed to be excused. Marjorie, Chris Sheriff's mom, was shocked. There was one black man that was sick. He didn't even last. Juror number seven. He'd been to his doctor and was told he needed an operation immediately. The man told the court he'd been having a hard time concentrating due to his health. Marjorie said she noticed this during the trial.

And he was sleeping most of the time. Juror 7 was in his mid-60s, retired two years. When Justice Eustchuk questioned him, he said he'd not felt well for some time. Court never learned what the illness was. The judge canvassed the defense in the crown. Christopher Hicks, Chris Sheriff's lawyer, wanted to take a break, give jurors seven time for the surgery and recovery. A wetts lawyer, Liam O'Connor, and Laura Bird, the prosecutor,

said they were happy to proceed with 11 jurors. Christopher Hicks lost that challenge too. Just as Uischuk said, they'd go with 11. He said he was already concerned because he'd promised the jury they'd be done by the last week in June, just a few days away. U.S. Chuck noted, one juror had a year-end accounting job to complete, another had put off starting a new job until July 1st.

If the trial spilled into July, they might lose two more jurors, and that would mean a mistrial, and they'd have to start all over. To me, going with the 11 jurors was unfair. Many trials go much longer than the two months this one ultimately ran. Marjorie said it didn't matter. had no interest in the case. It was like they were already made up their mind. Like, just, just, to me, they were found guilty before they tried even started. That's Marjorie's perception. I wasn't sitting in the courtroom, so it's impossible for me to tell if they were

hanging on every word. There's no doubt being a juror on a long case is tough. Yes, it's a civic duty and a noble one. It can even be exciting. Crime scenes, a spirited cross-examination, life and death issues people normally just see on TV. But it's a slog most days. Unless your company maintains your salary, you earn just $40 a day, and when you're at home, you can't talk about the case. Here's that Ontario jury video again. It makes it all seem so simple. Being a juror is a very rewarding experience. Those who participate feel an important sense of community involvement because they've done their part to make sure justice has been served. But I have to wonder, how do 12, well 11 in this case, perfect strangers, follow the twists and turns and arrive at a

decision. This isn't a math problem with one correct answer. Their decision is subjective. Who and what do they believe? The Ontario jury video warns that jurors have to focus on the facts as presented. A trial is not a contest between lawyers. Jurors are expected to reach a verdict based on the evidence that they hear and on how the law applies to it, not based on how they feel about the lawyers involved. Marjorie, Chris's mom, believes the jurors ignored what she said when she testified. Marjorie took her place in the witness box and testified there was no way her son was in a gang. She said she'd never seen anything gang related, not in his bedroom, not anywhere in their house, and not in the car they shared.

When I went up and testified, the jurors, they were just sitting there like no notes, no nothing, it was just stone face, no, because I was as close to them. They didn't even look at me. Nothing. I can't get inside the minds of the jury. It's a criminal offense in Canada for the jurors or anyone else to disclose jury deliberations. I do have a theory, though, about something that may have affected them, something that happened during the trial that surely would have caught their attention.

We'll be right back. Trials are supposed to take place in a bubble. Jurors are instructed to avoid media coverage of their case, but nothing stops them from hearing other news. And two weeks into the trial, there was a dramatic news event in Toronto. It happened just a few streets from the courthouse, a very public shooting. Police said it was gang-related. A shooting spree inside a downtown mall.

Across the globe, television stories and newspaper reports described the violence and chaos at the Eaton Center. One dead, seven injured, in the food concourse of the iconic shopping mall. Police were looking for a male suspect they described as black. In court, a wetts lawyer quipped to a witness, it was bad time. timing for his case. The coverage was relentless. One person died and another six were injured. Some even call into question the safety of Toronto streets. Another dent in Canada's reputation as a safe country. I think it's very likely that the intense media coverage of this brazen shooting gave an assist to the prosecution,

helped drive home its point that it was a scary world out there of guns and gangs. I've told you about the judge and the jury. Now, I want to focus on some specific pieces of evidence. Three pieces of information and the way they were presented to the jury. All of them were damning to Chris Sheriff. The first one involves something police quote Chris saying after he was arrested. I said, tell him I don't know what's going on.

I didn't do nothing. That was it. That was the only conversation that me and him had. When I go to court now, they're saying that I say, said I didn't shoot nor one. That's Chris giving me his recollection of what he said minutes after he was arrested. If you take your mind back,

it's around 11 p.m. on Sunday, August 16, 2009, about eight hours after Kim Gulloch was shot dead. Chris is sitting in a police minivan, handcuffed, with a sliding side door open. By chance, one of his brothers walks by. Please say you said something. Yeah, they said... Tell me about that.

Yeah, so when I got arrested, I see my brother. I don't know how, which is a coincidence. But we know a guy lives in the area, so I think he was coming from that guy's house. And he's seen me. This is Lloyd Jr., the brother who, three years later, will be involved in the car accident I mentioned in a previous episode, the one that prompted police to arrest Lloyd's senior. On this night, Chris sees his brother and calls out to him from the police.

police van. And he's like, what's going on? I said, I don't know. I said, tell mom I don't know what's going like. I didn't do nothing. But in court, two police officers testify that Chris said something completely different. The first, Officer Fitkin, testifies he told Chris he was being detained as part of a homicide investigation. Fitkin says Chris replies, I didn't do it, though. You got the wrong guy. Come on, officer. You can't be serious. Then, according to Officer, says, I swear in my life I didn't do it, I was just dropping off a friend. I didn't shoot anyone. In Officer Fitkin's memo book, the I didn't shoot anyone, is in capital letters, in quotations,

and underlined four times. He told court they had never told Chris there'd be in a shooting, only that there'd be in a murder. But here's the interesting thing. Officer Fitkin doesn't write any of this in his memo book until the next day. Something that important, I'd expect him to write it down right away. There's no video or audio of the arrest. This was long before Canadian police routinely wore body cameras. The other officer involved in the arrest, Officer Ross, his testimony at the trial was nearly identical. He said he left the police minivan for a bit, went to his car to get his memo book because he needed the printed caution on the back page, the one about having the right to remain silent. Ross said he came back with his

memo book, read the caution, and told Chris he was under arrest for first degree murder. To which he says Chris replied, who, me? And Officer Ross said, yes, you. And then, according to Officer Ross, Chris says, I swear on my life I didn't do it. I just came here to drop off my friend and leave. I didn't shoot anyone. With the exception of the words and leave, this is identical to what his partner, Officer Fitkin, wrote in his memo book a day later.

As to when Officer Ross wrote his notes, he told the court he made some while questioning Chris and some he wrote later in the evening. And he did a redo of the pages because his writing was messy. So when I went to court now, so I'm learning, I told him, I did not say this. Chris says that his lawyer told him, look, two police officers are going to testify that you said you didn't shoot anyone. The jury will believe them over you. And this is where Chris, for the second time, lied on the witness stand.

The first time being when he testified he was looking for a CD under his dashboard as an explanation for why he didn't hear the gunshots. Just tell him that you're talking about a shooting that happened in the area and that's the advice I took once again which again I shouldn't have took and I didn't want to tape but he's like just don't worry that he said that's not a big deal I asked lawyer Christopher Hicks about this he told me that he didn't coach Chris to say anything

but he said it's been so long that he simply doesn't remember this issue in any detail the second piece of information I want to dig into comes from Chris's interrogation after the arrest. Some statements made during that hours-long interview by homicide detectives Doug Sansom and Andrew Eklund. The audio isn't great, and Chris mumbles. I never had a gun before.

Chris is answering Detective Sansom's questions. He says, I've never had a gun before. A little gun, I never had a gun. I know you didn't have a gun. I know. Then Chris says, response to prompting by Sansom. If I can take guns out of the street, I've listened to this many times.

It's pretty clear to me. If I could take guns off the street, I would. Sansom keeps pressing. He says, look, we want to get the gun off the street. And Chris says he would help, but he doesn't know anything about the shooting or a gun. But that's not what the jury heard. The original police transcript has Chris saying, I think it was on the street from before, as in, I think the gun used in this killing

was on the street from before. It's a shocking difference. This transcript was wrong, and the Crown admitted a mistake had been made when it was prepared. When this was discovered mid-trial, Chris's lawyer asked the judge to instruct the jury about the incorrect transcription, that it was wrong, plain and simple. Justice used to, Chuck refused. Instead, he left it up to Chris's lawyer to correct it later in the trial. But the damage was done. Now, let's listen to the whole exchange between the detective and Chris. The cop is doing that appeal to the conscience technique.

I'm pretty sure they teach in police college. Do you think that after this formal thing that happened, that you, Doing one act of good deed would, at least make you feel a lot better. And you know that that's one last guy on the street, one last chance that that kind of would be used on somebody else? That means to feel a little bit better. Think of wood. If I can take that, see that way.

That's just one of many examples. of the poor police transcript. As all of this information was going in front of the jury, the city of Toronto was locked in fear because of the Eaton Center shooting. The coverage went on for weeks. Here's Global News Toronto

interviewing bystanders at the shooting scene. We never expect these kind of things in Canada, especially in Eaton Center. I will not let my kids go to the mall anymore. A pregnant woman was also trampled by panicked shoppers trying to escape. for many, a Saturday night of terror. The third piece of evidence I want to tell you about

relates to the DNA mistake I mentioned in a previous episode. It's confusing, so please bear with me. This happened when Chris was testifying in his own defense. A lot of accused people don't testify. They don't have to. But Christopher Hicks, Chris's lawyer, felt his client had so many good things going for him that it was worth the risk. Presenting the client's story to the jury.

It's good for the client, I think, if he can get up there and express himself or herself about what happened, because this is important. You know, this is your life is on the line, really, in many ways. Hicks warned Chris. It could get tough. And so you have to, I shouldn't use the word, coach, but prepare and say, okay, here's what you're going to say. Here's what you're going to cross-examine you. Chris did well during the first part of his testimony when his own lawyer was asking the questions. though just as U.S. Chuck kept telling him to speed it up. Remember, U.S. Chuck had made a promise to the jury that this trial would be done in a month.

U.S. Chuck wasn't pleased that Hicks was spending time taking Chris through his soccer career, his jobs, his studies to be a carpenter. The judge cut Hicks off. Enough is enough. Let's get on to the meat. But what Hicks was trying to do was important. Hicks was trying to show the jury that Chris didn't line up with the Toronto police. gang criteria. Gangsters don't work, don't finish school, etc. Hicks said it was a rough ride with Justice Hewischuk. I never had him before and I never had him since. When Christopher Hicks finished taking his client through his version of what happened on the Sunday of the shooting, it was the turn of Owett's lawyer, Liam O'Connor. He had a plan. Proved to the jury that Chris was a

gang leader, and Owett was a dupe someone Chris had been controlling for years. Chris had told court he hardly knew O'ett. The guy's five years older. He only hung out with him at the barbecue in the hotel. Yes, they had a bit of phone contact that summer, but that's because O'Wet was selling tickets to performances by an up-and-coming American rapper. In a courtroom flourish, straight out of television's Perry Mason. O'Connor, that's a Wett's lawyer, begins turning up the heat. Chris is in the witness box. O'Connor is in front of him. The lawyer holds up some pages, saying they're from the police. It's a sort of tactic lawyer Hicks had warned his client about. They're going to ask you questions and here's where you might be vulnerable.

O'Connor says, so, you hardly knew my client. Okay, how about that samurai sword stabbing from way back. Chris is confused. O'Wett wasn't there. He didn't even know him back then. O'Connor waves the papers in his hand. He says, clever Toronto police officers found proof that Chris and O'ett knew each other for quite some time. He says police found Owett's DNA on a glove at the samurai stabbing scene. He says, you stole my client's glove and dropped it at that scene. O'Connor has really fired up at this point. I think he was trying to make it seem like Chris was a criminal mastermind who had tried to frame a wet for the stabbing and then for Kim Gallup's murder. The lawyer says, so you did know my client? Chris says, no, not true. O'Connor Thunders,

I'm saying you're lying, sir. This DNA information did come from a police officer. I've seen the detective's notes. These notes say the glove found at the samurai sword scene had a wet Asfah's DNA on it. But here's the thing. Awet's DNA was not on the glove. In fact, at the time of the trial, police didn't know whose DNA was on the glove. This detective was wrong in what he wrote. But just think of the impact that had on the jury in the Kim Gallup murder trial. Hearing this, the jury would have thought Chris was lying about knowing O'et. None of this was discovered

until Chris had been in prison for two years. So how I discovered it was I had, so I had my child from my murder which they said it was a father of DNA. And then a year later, I had a trial with my eye

experience. We had a preliminary hearing that me and A never came out. After my preliminary hearing, my lord came up to me say, hey, by the way, they said they found your DNA on a glove. and I said, what are you talking about? I know the glove and DNA issue is confusing, but it's important.

Here's what I've been able to piece together. This false DNA match is put in front of the jury at the Kim Gullab murder trial. It's from a police notebook, but the crown doesn't raise it. Owett's lawyer does. Part of the cut-throw defense plan, I think. Then Chris and Owett are convicted of murder. Once a murder conviction is registered, the convicted person's DNA is taken. It gets entered into a federal database.

That triggers a match to this samurai sword case. It shows that Chris's DNA is on the glove, not a wets. Still following? I asked Misha Feldman, Chris's lawyer in the sword case, to explain. But he's found guilty. Chris's found guilty of murder, and as a consequence of that, they take a DNA sample as part of the sentence. And that DNA sample, when they uploaded it to their system, the police,

it came back as a hit on a glove. Chris is the one who figures it out. After he is acquitted in the sword case and taken back to prison, he starts going through the transcripts from his murder case. He sees something nobody had noticed. For some still unexplained reason, a police detective wrote in his notes that Owett's DNA was found on that glove.

By the way, there's never been an explanation from the Toronto Police as to why or how this happened. But this false information became part of the murder case against Chris. Justice Uischuk even referred to it in his charge to the jury. Nobody, not the Crown Attorney, not the police officers on the case, not Chris's defense lawyer. Nobody spoke up.

So I ask the lawyer a certain question and certain things like even with the DNA in total. I can tell you that. No lawyer wanted to believe me. No lawyer he wanted to believe that I could ever happen. At the end of all of the evidence at the trial, Justice U.S. Chuck laid out everything

in what's called a judge's charge. He gave the jury. various scenarios, and explained the law. With regards to Chris, he said that Chris either aided or abetted a wet or the phantom shooter. But he tells a jury, what you have to decide is, did Chris Sheriff do this knowingly? He said that, to convict him, the jury had to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Chris Sheriff was part of the scheme to shoot someone.

Members of the jury, you may now retire to consider your verdicts. The jury was sequestered overnight in a downtown hotel. They did return to the courtroom once to ask several questions. They'd heard Chris's entire police interrogation, but they'd only heard 30 minutes of Owets. Could they hear all the Owets interrogation? Just as Uischuk denied the request. The jury also asked about the gun. What kind was it?

Was there any ballistic check done? After some discussion, the jury was told the gun was believed to be a revolver, maybe a 38 caliber, but the gun was never recovered. After the questions had been answered, the jury retired to continue deliberations. One day later, the 11-member All-White jury returned. Will the jury president please stand. Awet Aspaha, Christopher Sheriff, please stand. jury president, have the members of the jury agreed upon their verdicts?

The president of the jury said they had. On the charge of first-degree murder, how do you find? The jury found them both guilty. The sentence was automatic, life imprisonment, 25 years before they could apply for parole. It all happened so fast that Marjorie, Lloyd, and the rest of their family didn't make it back in time to hear the verdict. We had left, and then we got a phone call that they reached a verdict, and on our way back, we got another phone call that they found message with.

In court a week later, several members of Kim Gullab's family spoke. I've tried for the past year to get them, even just one, to speak to me for this podcast. No luck, though I'm still trying. At the hearing, his mother, Ruth Watson, told the court how she can still still. remember Kim being born on a breezy hilltop in Hanover, Jamaica, and how he brought her great joy, love, and laughter. Through tears, Ruth said her son was a special person whose memories will live in the hearts of his family and friends. Kim's brother, Ryan, railed against two young men acting on vengeance who stole his brother's life. Kim's wife, Tedeka, described his murder as a senseless, cold-hearted killing of an innocent man. She said this murder has opened her eyes to the evil that resides in the world. I asked Detective Sansom, the homicide

investigator, to reflect on the case. For him, the jury got it right. When I pressed him on how Chris simply didn't fit the profile of a gang member, he agreed. He said, he was convinced that Owed Asfah was a hardcore member. Chris, not so much. I mean, that is a little bit odd that, you know, somebody that is disciplined in the sports halls for this whole, you know, gangs bullshit, but who knows, I don't quite understand it. You know, he lived in the area and somehow that looked up with these guys.

Still, he feels sympathy for Chris. I did feel bad for him because I didn't think he was. that's, you know, a hardcore gang member. I think he just was dabbling in it, and things went horrible for him. Chris is in his 13th year of incarceration. With different lawyers at every turn, he did two appeals to higher courts,

all unsuccessful. Marjorie, his mom, thinks back to what was said about her son in the courtroom and what the newspapers reported in their brief coverage of the case. That story that you read in the newspaper and what they come from the police prosecutor, it's not my son. It's not my son.

I would never live with a monster like that in my house. And none of my kids could be that person. Chris's current lawyer is preparing to argue what is known as a faint hope appeal. to see if Chris can apply for parole at his 15th year of incarceration. The way these appeals work, it would help if Chris took responsibility, said he made a terrible mistake, but that he was involved. Even just that he knew a shooting had taken place,

and he was knowingly driving the shooter away. I asked Chris about this. He understands what the system wants him to do. Yeah, so I had to take accountability. And so that's the tricky part for me because, like, I'm not going to take accountability for something I didn't do, even if it's to get on the job tomorrow. Chris said for him, it's a non-starter.

He will press forward with a faint hope appeal, but he won't say he was involved. Like, you know, I even told the lawyer that the lawyer, I talked to the lawyer and it's like, well, you should do the faint hope. I said, listen, the problem is I can't take accountability It's something I didn't do, and I won't do it. In our final episode, I go back to Chris. I want to ask him about a development in his case.

And I also want to put a tough question to him, one that's been bothering me for over a year. Murder on Mount Allum was written and narrated by me, Kevin Donovan. He was produced by Angeline Francis and Sean Patenden. Our executive producer is J.P. Foso. Additional production by Kelsey Wilson, Matt Hearn, and Tanya Pereira. Sound and theme music by Sean Patton.

Beautiful Anonymous changes each week. It defies genres and expectations. For example, our most recent episode, I talked to a woman who survived a murder attempt by her own son. But just the week before that, we just talked to the whole time about Star Trek. We've had other recent episodes about sexting in languages that are not your first language,

or what it's like to get weight loss surgery. It's unpredictable. It's real. It's honest. It's raw. Get Beautiful Anonymous wherever you listen to podcasts.