Suspicion - Was justice served? Kevin Donovan on the Mount Olive verdict — and the case that isn't over yet

Episode Date: June 29, 2026

The faint hope hearing in the Mount Olive murder case has concluded, but for Toronto Star chief investigative reporter Kevin Donovan, the outcome raises questions that go beyond one courtroom. In part two, we dig into the Crown's cross-examination, the weight of the victim impact statements, and why the fight for Christopher Sheriffe is far from finished.

From the Toronto Star, I'm Kevin Donovan, and this is season four of suspicion. Murder on Mount Olive. To help you understand more about the case of Chris Sheriff, we're doing a number of bonus episodes following the twists and turns of the case. Today, a major update. A wet Asphaha, who, like Chris, had long maintained his innocence, has confessed. He now admits he shot Bish and Golub. His confession is part part of his bid for early parole. It was a shocker to me. Here's part two of my conversation with Toronto Star producer, Julia DeLarentis Johnston. Welcome back to part two of our conversation with

Toronto Star Chief Investigative Reporter, Kevin Donovan, on the latest developments in the murder Mount Olive case, where we left off the convicted killer, a wet asphaha, he just upended his legal history of the case by taking the witness stand and admitting that he was in fact the shooter, contradicting 17 years of maintaining his innocence. While this admission carries major implications for his co-accused, Chris Sheriff, it did shift the focus to a critical question. Is Asfah genuinely coming clean? Is he rehabilitated or not? So Kevin, welcome back. Let's pick it up right as the crown comes in with their cross-examination. So you spoke a little bit about William Head, which is the minimum security prison that O'et has been spending his time recently.

This is the prison that has, you mentioned up to 100 inmates, cottages, private beaches, etc., coal plunges, I think you said. So the defense and the people who did that character reference, they used his therapy, his jobs, etc., to argue that he was a changed man. You also mentioned that he had some trouble when he was in prison. You mentioned smuggled steroids. You mentioned a fight over a Super Bowl bet. So can you tell me how did the Crown use what they were told that he's doing in his day-to-day against these incidences? And how did they argue about whether he was genuinely reformed or not? Well, so Catherine Rogosinski is the Crown attorney who caught the case. She's not somebody

who was ever involved in this before. And so her job is to pick apart everything that Awet and others is saying. And so the way it works is that of anybody, watches on television, say law and order, you've got the defense brings forward these witnesses, and then the Crown attorney starts asking them questions. So when Owett testified, he testified for a couple of days. That's called Testimony in Chief, and that's his own lawyer asking friendly questions, nice questions about his time in prison, pointing out all the good things he's done. Rogazinsky, the crown, gets up and she spends a few hours attacking everything that he said. So, for example, one of the times that O'Wet got in trouble in prison, it was when he was at the

medium security institution called Mountain. So in that case, it's not the beachfront place, but it's not maximum. So he's got his own medium. He's got his own cell, and it's out in the, in the wilds, this prison, and he's got a cat. and his cat, his name is Peanut. And so he looks after Peanut. In his testimony, he said that, you know, Peanut was attacked by a raccoon or something and cost him $1,000 money he had earned to fix the cat's leg. The cat comes into play because you're not supposed to have any contraband in your cell.

And they check you constantly. The cat's not contraband, but when they did a regular search of his cell, they found one of these little SD microcards. It's unclear what was on it. There was a suggestion that there was pornography, but really what I think was on it was an episode of the Mandalorian TV show. And it's found in his cell,

and he says that his cat, it's like the dog ate my homework. He said his previous inmate had the SD card. His cat peanut jumped up onto the fridge in his unit, knock the SD card down into his shoe. That's his story. So the crown, I mean, this sounds ridiculous. So we're talking about peanut and the SD card.

But the crown is saying, I don't believe you. We don't believe you that that happened. And so O'ette said, that's what happened. She's trying to show that he's a liar. She's trying to show that he's a liar on a number of occasions because that will help her attempt to keep him in prison until at least 25 years has been served. Another one was the issue of deceit over steroids.

So she asked her, like, you were caught with steroids, and I think some nicotine patches. And these things don't sound absolutely horrible to me, actually. It's not like he's caught with cocaine. But she's trying to dig into, you know, tell me about that. And he said, well, it was during the pandemic. You couldn't really do any programs in prison. It was all kind of like lockdown.

and the steroids was just something that, you know, kind of helped him. He said he was trying to do, he was always concerned about his body image and he was trying to improve his body image. So each time she would raise something and try and show that he was being deceitful. There were other little things. There was this issue of the Super Bowl fight. So when he was at medium security, there was a bet, something to do with one of the Super Bowls. and he had told some people, including his family,

that the other guy threw the first punch. And you're not supposed to have fights in prison. And in fact, he testifies, that was a lie. That was a lie. I threw the first punch. And so there's a number of these things. None of them were enormous violations, but there's a concern that the crown was raising about,

does this not indicate that we can't trust you to let you out into the community? So that's why she's bringing these little segments of his prison life up. On the other hand, he's coming out with things like, you know, I've got looking after a cat that shows that I'm a good person, and it does show you a good person, I think. He's also forging friendships. One of the big concerns, they have these things called STGs in prison life.

Security threat group. We call them gangs. And in his early days in prison, he was kind of hanging around with the wrong people. He is trying very hard by his testimony and the testimony of some of the guards to stay away from these security threat groups, stay away from gangs. And in fact, now where he lives, in the place was seven beaches and a hundred men, there was testimony that he has specifically chosen to live in an area of this. little community. I imagine it's like the Toronto Island community, but you have to live in this

community where people are older, older offenders who've been there a long time, long past their 25 years, and they're quiet. It's a quieter neighborhood is how it was described. This is upsetting the apple card of what I thought of Canadian prisons. And by the way, I've been to see Chris Sheriff in prison. He's in a medium security, and it's a very different situation for him there than a wet has experiencing out in the west coast of Canada. Did the Crown mention anything about how O'ett only admits to this stunning admission after he had lost his final trial appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada? You mentioned that they had lost it.

Does she bring that up at all? She does, she does, and did a really good job with it. So let's go back to 2009 is the murder. 2012 is the conviction. And it's 2017 when his last appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in our land is denied. And so that happens to be exactly at the time when he starts confessing to people, his family,

and some people in the prison system, that in fact he had lied and he was the killer. He made it seem like it was just being transparent, open, vulnerable through all the therapy he was doing. What Rogazinsky, the Crown, said is, no, that's not why you did that. you had exhausted your appeal. She said the jig is up. You're not getting out by appeal, your conviction to be overturned. And he said, no, that's not the case. So in a court of law,

I mean, the Crown asked questions. The jury is instructed to look to see if that was effective at all. How did he respond? I think he just said, no, that's not true. It was at that time my life, I decided that I was going to be open about the shooting. I'm just a reporter, but I think that is exactly what happened. I think the crown was bang on. I think the jig was up, and then he decided in 2017, I'm going to start working towards getting out another way with this faint hope appeal that we've been talking about.

We'll be right back. So let's talk a little bit about the defense. They spent two weeks creating this portrait of this, of this rehabilitated man. But then we come to the victim impact statements, and Golub's family comes to speak, and his widow speaks of her heartbreak. He's got a number of children,

and one of them, you know, who was, I think, quite small at the time, talks about the heartbreak of growing up with their father, etc. So from your vantage point in the press gallery, I suppose, how did the weight of those specific statements alter the atmosphere? I think the reason that the jury brought in the verdict it does bring in was because of those statements. They were very powerful. Now, they chose to do it by having, in all but one case, the Crown Attorney read the statements out.

I would like to think that if I was in that situation, I would speak up for my loved one, actually take the witness stand. They decided, with one exception, to just have their statements read. So what we heard in court were the statements that they had made in 2012, and then some of them augmented them or did new statements. And they were quite emotional. In fact, at one point, the defense lawyer gently criticized the Crown attorney who was reading these emotional statements for being too emotional. And the Crown just, I can't help it.

They're emotional statements. And what's contained in the statements are people, children. He had four children and a stepchild. He had a previous wife who he's still close with and Tedeka, his widow. And what they described is that day, that terrible day, when they were expecting him to come home and he didn't come home. There are very emotional statements from his widow saying that sometimes, as the years past, the kids would say, but where is daddy? Is he not coming home? Some of them were very young at the time.

What all of them said, all of the victims' family, said, we don't want a wet ASFA out. life is life they said and Canada life is 25 years and then you can apply for parole they said stay the course don't let this guy out they said you know he took away the life of a wonderful man that wonderful man in his family they don't get early parole is what they said and you know I watched asphaha when he would when this was going on and he still had this uh I think the term is no affect. Like he was not, he wasn't crying, he wasn't moving at all. I've never seen a person sit longer without moving as he had for all these days. At this point, he's back in the prisoner's box. But they were powerful statements, and I think that got through to the jury. With these

feigned hope appeals, what the victim says is actually given a fair bit of prominence. There's various things, the rehabilitation we've talked about, and what the victim's wishes are. And they're respected, supposed to be respected by the jury, and I think they were. You had previously said in the original trial that there were 11 jurors, one was excused, and the same thing occurred in this particular trial. First, can you remind us what happened in the first trial, and then what happened here, too? Yeah, in the first trial, there was a jury of 12, and the way it works is normally a jury of 14 is chosen in Canada, and then as soon as evidence starts, the two alternates are dismissed, so they leave the courtroom. In this case, halfway through the lone black man on the 2012 jury sent a note to the judge saying that he was

experiencing some health problems. We never heard what it was, but it was something he needed an operation. And the defense for ASFA and sheriff said, well, like, is there a rush here? Particularly sheriff said, like, why don't we wait till he has his operation? And then the judge said, no, and he dismissed this guy. So then we have a jury of 11 white people. this one, we have the same thing, 14 jurors, two were excused when the evidence starts, and we're down to 12, a much more, I would say, Toronto-type jury. It was a mix of male and female and ethnicities. And then halfway through this hearing, one of them sent a note to the judge saying that they had spotted somebody in the gallery and they put it together that that was somebody who was working with the

defense counsel, like they were at the same firm. And the juror, I think, wanted to stay in the case, but the judge, I think, quite rightly said, no, we can't have that. So then they went ahead with 11 jurors. So, you know, and another trial that I'm covering right now, same thing happened. We lost another juror, this one, because the juror was falling asleep. So it's a lot to ask people to sit for, you know, weeks on end. But it's, It's the system we have. So in the end for this one, the jury took just one day to deliberate after all that. They knocked exactly one year, right, off of what's 25-year sentence, which means he'll be released now in 2033.

He won't be released. He can apply. So the way it works, there's a multi-stage process. So the first stage, which happened last year, is that a judge, in this case, Judge Breeze Davies, Justice Brees-Davies, she decided that there was another. evidence to have a faint hope hearing. Then the jury is impaneled, and that's happened. What the jury did, and you're quite right, that they've knocked him down from 25 years to 24 years before he can apply to the National Parole Board, which is a federal board, which has people experienced in parole matters, and he will basically make the same case to them. He would be wise to keep doing what

he's doing and, you know, keep his ears clean and not have any more Super Bowl fights or any more SD cards, anything like that. So he will be able to apply for that when he's reached 24 years. So that's in, I think, 2034. He can also apply for day parole, I think, in 2031 now. That means he would be able to leave escorted and then come back to prison at night. There's a lot of of rules as I'm learning as we're learning in the prison system. And so right now he's got to go back. His lawyer, Brianna Vannebeek, she said to me that she and her client really appreciate that the jury listened to everything he had to say. And she said, my client is going to continue on his path and do his best so that he can, you know, one day be a contributing member of society. That's what

she said. I asked a crown attorney for comment. She took, you know, sort of the win, I would say. And, said no comment. We'll be right back. So with that one year reduction, what do you think that actually tells us that they chose only one year? We can't be inside jury rooms. There's a section of the criminal code

that prevents us from interviewing jurors and hearing what they have to say. But it would be really fascinating because I think they felt that I think that the victim impact statements had never been heard, they would have let him out a lot sooner. I think there was probably a very robust discussion amongst those 11 jurors.

And somebody said, well, look, why don't we give them something? Let's give him a light at the end of the tunnel. So let's drop off one year. I'm speculating that there was probably a discussion about three years, two years, one year. And there was probably somebody on that jury who said, no, I think he should be able to apply now. But I think people put yourself in the juror's shoes. if they were to say let let him apply now and then then he gets out in a couple of years something happens it's going to be on their conscience and that's why i mean the jury system is so important in our

society but ultimately it's a guess it's a guess in this you know they can't predict the future and so i think they decided let's keep him inside let's give him that one year ray of hope which is you know significant and then let's hope that he continues on this past path. One thing I've been thinking about this case, we haven't talked about this, but he was not a great guy when he pulled that trigger, obviously. He had a conviction for drugs. A couple of, previously, a couple of drug convictions. He was hanging around by his own admission with members of the Jamestown gang. Wasn't a member. He said he did it to gain stripes. He said, He said, I shot that guy to get into the gang, to gain stripes with the gang. His sisters all seem lovely people.

They all testified in his behalf. They didn't go down the wrong path. He did. He's blaming his father. Lots of people have crappy fathers and they don't go shoot a man on an olive drive in the middle of a barbecue. That man, I don't think really exists anymore, the man who fired that gun. Because he has been exposed to so many things. He's done a one-man play in prison.

prison. There's a director who comes in and does plays, and it's based on his life story. He did a play about his own life? Yeah, he did a play, which I think had something to do with what exactly happened that day. 2009, Owed Asfah, wasn't doing plays, he wasn't getting a forklift license. Chris Sheriff was. He was becoming a carpenter and had been a soccer star, very different character. But O'Wed is a different person today, and hopefully that the jury made a good decision and things will go forward. He'll still, he'll get out in his 40s probably, and maybe he'll have that food truck one day. You mentioned Chris Sheriff. What is next for Chris Sheriff? Well, Chris is not at the moment pursuing the faint hope. Big part of the faint hope is taking

accountability. And for all the times I've spoken to him and for all of his various appeals, he said he didn't do it. He had no knowledge that this happened. Talked to his lawyer. about this revelation, and she said it's going to help them because it calls into question. This new evidence that Owett now says he was a shooter and he lied is something the jury didn't have back in 2012. She said this should help him. She's going a different route. She's going before a federal commission, sort of it's a group of lawyers in our federal

justice department. She's making a representation to them saying that this is a case of a miscarriage of justice. he should never be convicted. Here's the new information. We now know who the shooter was, and that commission can do a bunch of things. The Justice Minister can vacate a conviction. I don't think that's going to happen.

What I think will happen is in the next couple of years, they will send it back for a new trial. And then there'll be another jury of 12, maybe get a jury of 13 this time. I'm being facetious there. There'll be another jury that will be asked to hear this evidence. O'Wet Asfah will probably be asked to testify at that. The victim impact statements will come out. There will be, I predict, by Samara Sector, the very good lawyer that Chris now has,

doing this pro bono, by the way, top Toronto lawyer. She, I think, will get that young officer, no longer young officer, on the witness stand and dig into who those sources were that he had. See if she can get some more information about that, see if she can find out was there, as I think they're alleging, a rush to judgment that was unfair for Chris Sheriff. Well, this story right now, it's about O'WET, it's about Chris, but pulling back, zooming out a little bit on a macro level, it's also about the justice system. And so my final question to you is, based on how the system operates, is the Crown actively fighting or will it actively fight to preserve these legacy convictions out of some kind of institutional pride, perhaps,

or is the administrative process to review a miscarriage of justice? It's simply slow, or too slow to quickly handle a case built on a proven lie. Yeah, that's a very important question. I mean, the Crown attorneys in Canada are supposed to act for the people. They're supposed to really look at both sides of the case. We think of them as prosecutors, but they're supposed to be officers of the court that look at all sides. And so I found it interesting in this case that Rogazinsky, the Crown, didn't bring any witnesses of her own forward. She probably could have, but she didn't. So I don't think her case was institutional pride. I think she wanted to give another side of the story to the jury. The Crown won't do anything on Chris Sheriff's case until Samara

sector, his lawyer, files material, then I believe they will probably respond. They will probably fight it. There is this thing where, you know, we got it right the first time. We think the guy is a killer. They think both of them are killers and we don't want to admit we're wrong. There are many cases in Canadian history, too many right now, where it has been found that somebody was in prison for decades and they didn't do it. The people with the Innocence Project in Canada, which is a group that seeks to get people who are improperly convicted or released, they estimate generally that it's one to two percent of people in prison right now who didn't do it. And that's because, I mean, it's the best system we have, but our criminal justice system is flawed and it does get it wrong

some time. Well, Kevin, thank you so much for all of the information, the analysis. If you haven't heard Murder on Mount Olive, or you have and you need a refresh, please go and look for it wherever you get your podcasts, and you can follow Kevin's reporting at the start.com. Kevin, thank you so much. Thank you. Murder on Mount Olive was written and narrated by me, Kevin Donovan. He was produced by Angeline Francis and Sean Patton. Our executive producer is J.P. Foso. Additional production by Kelsey Wilson, Matt Hearn, and Tanya Pereira.

Sound and theme music by Sean Patton.