Suspicion - 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

Suspicion Season 4 is brought to you by Havelock Metal, quality metal roofing and siding. 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.

Awet 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. Marjorie Boland's the one who makes the 911 call that brings police rushing to the scene. Can you tell me the police phone number? A gentleman just went by here. My heart's beating so bad. He had a gun in his hand and there were 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 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 Awet 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 4 of Suspicion, Murder on Mount Olive. Episode 9, Trial and Error. On our last episode, I took you through the weekend of Kim Gollib'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 getaway? Why head back to Mount Olive, where the shooting took place, instead of just taking off down Silverstone. Still, a jury convicted him. Awet 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 Awet 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 Awet 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 Carpenters 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 Golub 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 Uischuck. Hey, William, it's Kevin Donovan from the Toronto Star calling.

Hey, Kevin, how are you? That's William Jaxa, 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 arrange 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 a bias.

This all happened seven years before Chris and Awet'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, you know, him and I were friendly and good friends and I understood how serious it was that he was asking a judge to 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 Don 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 chip 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 U.S. Chuck 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 Uistchuk 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.

Caller. Hello? Yes. It's Kevin Donovan from the Toronto Star Calling. I'm trying to reach retired retired justice judge, Chuck. Thank you. 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

he was chiseled out of rock. US 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. U.S. Chuck 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 present law which says that's an important factor to be considered into the termination 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 his 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 and were, may 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. U.S. 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 U.S. Chuck 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 Uistchuk was unfair. The judge got a new nickname. I only ever remember Edward calling U.S. Chuck Tex, but clients would call him U.S. Fucked. Justice, U.S. Fucked. This is the judge who presided over Chris and Owette'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 Sherriff's lawyer, Christopher Hicks, was disappointed to get you as Chuck. I mean, he was... Nobody in the fence bar 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 Justice U.S. Chuck's big, almost larger than life personality certainly dominated the proceedings.

But when I drilled down into his many rulings during the trial, it looked to 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 10, 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, It is going to favor the prosecution because that's where his ego and his vanity is extremely vain. 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 Nasser, said Chris was a gang leader. The jury was sent out while the lawyers argued. Hicks said allowing Nasser 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 Justice U.S. Chuck permitted. Chris's trial lawyer, Hicks, then tried a legal tactic known as innocence at stake. To do this, he had to show the CIs 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 CIs had information that could help establish Chris' 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's saying, this is the system.

If you can't find out who it is, they leave it alone, and they will keep that secret till they die. In one tiny victory for Hicks, just as U.S. Chuck instructed the jury that what Officer Nasser testified about gang membership and the hustle squad should not be taken as showing a propensity to commit a crime. But Uichuk said Nasser'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 Nasser'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 has pretty much closed all the doors and windows on this issue. CI is sacrosanct. I've seen a lot of judges in action over the years. The nickname Tex fits.

Justice Uichuk really does shoot from the hip. Like when that photo was discussed in court, the one Officer Nasser 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 Yuschuk 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 U.S. Chuck'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. with how the judge treated defense lawyers and accused during trials. Here's a smattering of the comments. Justice Yuschuk 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 and Owette's trial. I found the same thing. Justice Yuschuk 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 park location. Just as Yuschuk snapped, that's not proper English. The interpreter said that's what he said. After further pressure, the

interpreter changed the 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. I grew up in the renovation business. If I wasn't a reporter, I would have been a builder. And I know quality is key. So whether it's for your house, cottage, or building, make your next roof last with Havelock Metal. Havelock Metal has been specializing in steel roofing, siding, trim, and accessories for over 30 years.

Visit HavelockMetal.com to request your quote today. You ever see a viral makeup look and think, okay, I need to try that? Whether you're just a mascara and gloss girly or you're all about bold color and drama, we've got that one product you can always trust. For me, it's Thrive Cosmetics. Their Liquid Lash Extensions Mascara gives you the look of salon lashes without the glue or the damage. It doesn't clump, flake or smudge. And it comes off with just warm water and a cloth. Easy. I'm so happy I made the switch to this tubing mascara.

Thrive Cosmetics is 100% vegan, cruelty free and every purchase contributes to one of their 650 non-profit partners. So your glow up gives back. Try your new trusty tubing mascara with 20% off your first order at thrivecosmetics.com slash beauty. That's Thrive Cosmetics, C-A-U-S-E-M-E-T-I-C-S

dot com slash beauty for 20% off your first order. Beauty for 20% off your first order. 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 the jur. 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 Awet 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. Defence 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 Owette's 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 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 Uichuk 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, Justice Uchuk 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 a more diverse jury than that. I used to 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 that's usually quite mixed. But not 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. There just aren't any black people on it. You know, you're in the minority. It's visible in the minority. No, it's not a conspiracy. It's just 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 Sherr'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 Uistchuk questioned him, he said he'd not felt well for some time. Court never learned what the illness was. The judge canvassed the defense and the crown. Christopher Hicks, Chris Sheriff's lawyer, wanted to take a break, give jurors seven time for the surgery and recovery. Awet's lawyer, Liam O'Connor, and Laura Byrd, the prosecutor, said they were happy to proceed with eleven jurors. Christopher Hicks lost that challenge too. Just as U.S. Chuck 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 and a counting 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 missed trial, 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. All of them 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 the trial 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. Because even 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 offence 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. Whether it's for your house, cottage, or building, make your next roof last with Havelock Metal. Havelock Metal has been specializing in steel roofing, siding, trim, and accessories for over 30 years. Visit HavelockMetal.com to request your quote today. You ever see a viral makeup look and think, okay, I need to try that? Whether you're just a mascara and gloss girly,

or you're all about bold color and drama, we've got that one product you can always trust. For me, it's Thrive Cosmetics. Their Liquid Lash Extensions Mascara gives you the look of salon lashes without the glue or the damage. It doesn't clump, flake, or smudge, and it comes off with just warm water and a cloth. Easy.

I'm so happy I made the switch to this tubing mascara. Thrive Cosmetics is 100% vegan, cruelty-free, and every purchase contributes to one of their 650 nonprofit partners. So your glow up gives back. Try your new trusty tubing mascara with 20% off your first order at thrivecosmetics.com slash beauty that's thrive cosmetics see a you s e m e t i c s dot com slash beauty for 20% off your first

order attention sports enthusiasts keep the adrenaline pumping and elevate your game day with Chumba Casino. It's completely free to play, no purchase necessary. Whether you're cheering from the stands, on the move, or relaxing at home, Chumba Casino brings the thrill of social casino directly to your fingertips. Experience the ultimate social casino adventure with reels of casino style games, offering hundreds of exciting options to choose from and fresh new releases every week. There's always something new and thrilling to explore. From action-packed social slots and classic blackjack to engaging bingo and solitaire,

the fun never stops. Plus, enjoy generous daily login bonuses and a fantastic free welcome bonus to kickstart your social gaming journey. Dive into the excitement, discover a world where you can play for your chance to redeem some serious prizes and have a blast along the way. Don't miss out. What are you waiting for? Join now and immerse yourself in nonstop fun and adventure with Chamba Casino. Get in on the action today at ChambaCasino.com and make every day a Chamba day. No purchase necessary. VGW could void word prohibited by law. 18 plus DNC supply. Trial are supposed to take place in a bubble. But the problem is that the problem is not the problem. The problem is the problem is the problem.

The problem is the problem. The problem is the problem. Trial is 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 describe the violence and chaos at the Eaton Centre. 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 WETS lawyer quipped to a witness it was bad 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 my mother, 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 said I didn't shoot no 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 Gallup was shot dead. Chris is sitting in a police minivan, handcuffed, with the sliding side door open. By chance, one of his brothers walks by. Police say you said something.

Yeah, they said this. 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 air. So I think he was coming from that guy's house. And he 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 Sr. On this night, Chris sees his brother and calls out to him from the police van. And he's like, what's going on? I said, I don't know. I said, tell my mom I don't know what's going on. 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 Fitkin, Chris says, I swear on 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 would be a shooting, only that there would be a murder. But here's the interesting thing.

Officer Fitken 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, someone learned that I didn't, 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 take, but he said, don't worry, 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. I've never had a gun. I know you didn't have a gun. Then Chris says, in response to prompting by Sansom, If I could take guns off the street, what would it be? 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 Yuschuk 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 am pretty sure they teach in police college. Do you think that after this formal thing that happened,

that doing one act of good deed would just make you feel a lot better? And you know that that's one less guy on the street, one less chance that that gun's going to be used on somebody else. That means you feel a little bit better. Think of what if I could take my life to see another one. 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 Centre 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 the Eastern Centre. I will not let my kids go to the mall anymore. A pregnant woman was also trampled by panic 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. 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, OK, here's what you're going to say. Here's where people are 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 US Chuck kept telling him to speed it up. Remember, US Chuck had made a promise to the jury that this trial would be done in a month. US 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 Please gang criteria. Gangsters don't work, don't finish school, etc. Hicks said it was a rough ride with Justice Huaschuk. Again, 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 Awet's lawyer, Liam O'Connor. He had a plan. Prove to the jury that Chris was a gang leader and Awet was a dupe, someone Chris had been controlling for years. Chris had told court he hardly knew Awet. The guys five years older, he only hung out with him at the barbecue and the hotel. Yes, they had a bit of phone contact that summer, but that's because Awet 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 Owette'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 the 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. Awet 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 Awet knew each other for quite some time. He says police found Awet'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 is 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 Gollop'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 Awet Asvaha'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 Awet. None of this was discovered until Chris had been in prison for two years. Well, how I discovered it was I had, so I had my trial in America, which they said it was a fraudulent DNA. And then a year later, I had a trial, my acupuncture. So we had a preliminary hearing, the DNA never came out. After my preliminary hearing, my lawyer came up to me and said, hey, by the way, they said they found your DNA on a glove.

And I asked them, 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 Gallup murder trial. It's from a police notebook, but the Crown doesn't raise it. Awet's lawyer does,

part of the cutthroat defense plan, I think. Then Chris and Awet 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 wet's. Still following? I asked Misha Feldman, Chris's lawyer in the sword case, to explain. But he's found guilty, Chris is 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, they had 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 Awet'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. Just as U.S. Chuck even referred to it in his charge to the jury. Nobody, not the Crown Attorney, not the police officers on the case, not Chris' defense lawyer,

nobody spoke up. I asked the lawyer certain questions and certain things like, they will, about certain things like even, even what the DNA is told. I can tell you that. No lawyer wants to believe me. No lawyer wants to believe that that 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 the 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 a wets. Could they hear all the wets interrogation? Justice Yuschuk 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 day.

They reached a verdict and on our way back, we got another phone call that day from Mr. Beattie. In court a week later, several members of Kim Gollib'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 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 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, Tadeeka, 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 Awet Asfaha was a hardcore member. Chris, not so much.

I mean, that is a little bit odd that 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 got hooked up with these guys. Still he feels sympathy for Chris. I did feel bad for him because I didn't think he was a 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 confirm in the press, it's not my son. 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 I'm not going to take accountability for something I didn't do, even if it's to get over the jail 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, I talked to the lawyer and he was like, well, you should do the faint hope. I said, listen, the problem is I can't take account of it for 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.ப்புற்றும் யார் லகும் லகும் லகும் லகும் லகும் லகும் Murder on Mount Olive was written and narrated by me, Kevin Donovan.

He was produced by Angeline Francis and Sean Patten. Our executive producer is JP Fozo. Additional production by Kelsey Wilson, Matt Hearn, and Tanya Pereira. Sound and theme music by Sean Patten.