Uncover - S23 E6: Mr. Big | "The Pit"

Episode Date: December 25, 2023

Police have Sheree’s alleged killer behind bars, but the suspect says he was scared into a confession. Our reporters investigate the controversial police technique that led to his arrest. Meanwhile, people close to Sheree break their silence.

In 2017, it felt like drugs were everywhere in the news, so I started a podcast called On Drugs. We covered a lot of ground over two seasons, but there are still so many more stories to tell. I'm Jeff Turner, and I'm back with Season 3 of On Drugs. And this time, it's going to get personal. I don't know who Sober Jeff is. I don't even know if I like that guy.

On Drugs is available now wherever you get your podcasts. This is a CBC Podcast. Mr. Big, he's the one with the control, the authority, the tough guy who's in charge. Mr. Big can get people to do things for him, and to say things they sometimes regret. When it comes to Greg Furtuck, Mr Big could be the reason he is sitting in jail right now, awaiting his trial, accused of killing his estranged wife, Sherry Furtuck. Greg has spent every night in jail since his arrest six months ago, waiting. Greg says he shouldn't be there, that he's innocent.

He says he was tricked, scared into a confession by a controversial police operation, and missed a big sting. I made it up, and we went out supposedly looking for the body. Well, there was no body, so we just drove around to these different places because it was all BS. I never, I didn't kill her.

Well, I would love to see him convicted of murder and in prison till he dies. Not only do people potentially confess to things they didn't do, they have done that. I'm Alicia Bridges. This is Episode 6 of The Pit. Greg Furtack is charged with first-degree murder and causing an indignity to a human body. While he waits for his day in court, Sherry's family waits too. There's so much they don't know about how the police investigated Greg and how the Mr Big Sting will play out in court.

I think because they are controversial, I'm really crossing my fingers and hoping that they did it all the right ways and did it legally and, you know, so that it can be admissible in court. That's Sherry's sister, Michelle Kish. Yeah, I was a little bit afraid that, you know, cases do go cold, right? You hear that all the time. And I just thought, oh, God, like this can't be one of them. Something's got to come of it.

About a year ago, my colleague Victoria Dinh asked her for an interview. We've been working on this story together. We didn't hear back until July of this year, a few weeks after Greg Vertak's arrest. Michelle sent us an email after listening to the podcast. She told us she wasn't comfortable talking to us when we first made contact. She was scared that Greg would hear about it. But now she says she's ready. So we drive out to meet her in her home in Chestermere, Alberta. It's about six hours from Saskatoon. We drive into a snowstorm.

How are you feeling about your visit, Victoria? I'm super stressed and I hate it. But the storm is over when we arrive at Michelle's the next morning. I'm super stressed and I hate it. But the storm is over when we arrive at Michelle's the next morning. It's a quiet neighborhood. The street is almost silent. Hello, ladies. Hi. Come on in.

Hi, nice to meet you. Michelle answers the door and she greets us with such a warmth that it reminds us of her mum, Julianne. She's carrying a giant Tim Hortons coffee cup and has her hair whipped up in a top knot. Her kitchen is sleek and modern. We sit down at the table. She tells us it was hard listening to the podcast and especially difficult hearing her mum, Julianne, who died in 2018. It was sad because, of course, when I listened to it,

my mum was already gone, right? I listened to it my mom was already gone right I mean I guess it was nice hearing my mom's voice sort of one last time but but yeah it made me sad it made me sad that that this was her child her her oldest daughter know, that this has happened to. And I don't know that any parent would ever get over that, right? It's clear that family means a lot to Michelle. Her home is filled with family photos, just like her mom's. Michelle tells us about her memories of Sherry from when they were growing up on the farm. She says Sherry was the responsible older sister, a protector for the younger siblings. She would go to the parties and stuff, but like, I think she typically came home

at curfew and whatever. She played sports. She was good at it. She was smart in school, for sure, got really high marks. But boyfriends, no, she didn't. I don't think she dated anybody until she married Greg, honestly. Michelle says Sherry was happy when she first met Greg. But later she remembers he would call her names. She says it hurt to see that happening. that's probably one of my biggest regrets, is that I didn't maybe offer an ear more often or ask her about it. I mean, we knew what was going on,

and I'm sure she knew how we felt, but I do regret that I didn't, I don't know, try to help more. I don't know. I guess you just figure everybody deals with their own situations and that's life, right? Michelle always knew the police investigation was still active, but she never knew exactly what was happening behind the scenes. And then, five months ago, everything changed.

It's been almost four years. And, you know, like I said, time goes on, nothing was really happening. So, like, yeah, it's always in the back of your mind, but you go on with your life. Well, then he's arrested. Then it's all brought back. Then you hear the podcast, and just everything's brought back. So now we await trial. It's going to drudge everything all up again,

and we're going to hear details. We're going to hear all that evidence. It's going to be, that's going to be hard. We don't know what we're going to hear. It could be so horrible. Not long after Greg's arrest, he told us he didn't kill his wife. We interviewed him at the Saskatoon jail. He tells us he was the target of an undercover police operation, a Mr. Big Sting.

Okay, I guess we'll just start by having you spell your first and last name for the record. Corey, C-O-R-Y, Bliss, B-L-I-S-S. Corey Bliss is the Crown Prosecutor working on the case against Greg. That's him talking with reporters outside the courthouse in Saskatoon back in July. You know, all I think I can tell you is this has been an example of a very complex investigation. Full credit is due to the RCMP for never giving up, for continuing to search for the truth, and in this matter, the truth will come out.

Corey didn't get into specifics, but Greg did tell us that the police tricked him into thinking they were members of a criminal organization. Something like the mob. They wanted him to share details about what happened to Sherry. When he told them he, quote, got rid of her, they charged him with first-degree murder. Greg says it was all a lie. I got intimidated and I was afraid for my life. Greg says it was all a lie. He says he made it up because he was scared.

Mr. Big operations were invented in Canada in the 90s. Since then, they've been used hundreds of times. They're not allowed in the US or Britain, but they have been used in Australia. In Canada, they have an extremely high success rate. They've been criticised for inducing false confessions, but they've also helped convict murderers in cold cases. Interestingly, Mr Big Stings aren't new to Michelle. I knew about these sting operations because it just so happened that one of my clients here in Chestermere,

there was the same thing, like a murder in her family or whatever, distant family or whatever. And so she was telling me about this Mr. Big operation that they did, and he was caught. And I'm like, wow. So then I said to her, I said, I wonder if they'll do something like that with this investigation. She says, well, hopefully, because she said it's been proven to work and whatnot. When we hadn't heard anything, I got to thinking, hmm, I wonder if they are doing like a sting operation. So basically a year went by and then Greg was arrested. And that's when we found out, you know, about the sting operations, Mr. Big. And I'm like, oh my God, I right away texted my client.

I said, you're not going to believe this. This is what they did. She's like, no way. And so anyway, so I was like, yes, you know. So hopefully it is admissible in court and it works. Michelle still doesn't know all the details of the police investigation into her sister's case. So she has a lot of questions about Greg and the police operation and how it's going to play out in court. about Greg and the police operation,

and how it's going to play out in court. Like, why would someone keep hanging out with the undercover cops if they thought they were criminals? And why would a person confess if they didn't do it? We want to know more about Mr Big Stings too, and why they're so controversial. Not all of our questions have answers, at least not yet. But there's a lot we can learn from previous Mr. Big cases. So we start with a guy who knows them well.

My name is Brian Pfefferle, and I've been a lawyer in Saskatoon for the last 12 years, primarily practicing criminal defense work. Brian has defended three people charged with serious crimes after a Mr. Big operation. He's consulted on other cases, too. crimes after a Mr. Big operation. He's consulted on other cases too. The way I'd describe a Mr. Big sting to someone that hasn't experienced it before, it's essentially a situation where the police act as undercover agents. They have a series of fictitious scenarios where they would try to convince a potential subject that they're part of a fictitious criminal organization.

The purpose behind it would be to gain the trust of the subject and then have the subject ultimately develop such a trust where they'll say things to the undercover operators that can later be used against them in a criminal prosecution. The storylines and scenarios for some are almost carbon copies of each other. Each operation starts with an introduction. To the target, it seems like a chance meeting. These can be really elaborate and pretty clever. In one case, the undercover officers pretended to be doing a survey. They encouraged the suspect's wife to enter a competition. The grand prize was an overnight

stay at a hotel, dinner at a steakhouse, cash, and tickets to a professional hockey game. Of course, they won. They traveled by limo to the game with the other winners. But the whole thing was a setup. Everyone else in the car was an undercover officer. That's an example of a first meeting. Then there would be another meet, which is often related to the first meet, where they're trying to make some sort of connection, usually employment-wise, by promising that the individual would be given some sort of employment or position with the fictitious organization.

Greg Furtack says he was offered a paid job driving cars from point A to point B. Police have used that same tactic in other cases. Then there tends to be sort of various scenarios where they're trying to impress the subject, whether that's taking them to fancy restaurants, fancy bars, getting bottle service, flying them to places like Vancouver or Calgary or Montreal. Then there's often scenarios involving members of the organization getting into trouble,

but then getting out of trouble. This is sometimes referred to as the violent incident. Remember Greg Furtack's story about someone killing a girl? I kind of thought they were criminals because this one guy killed his girlfriend and I know he had blood all over him, scratches on his face. And this guy from Vancouver got rid of everything.

He was sort of a clean-up guy. Some type of simulated violence takes place in almost every Mr Big operation. The scenario is tailored to suit the specifics of the case. Take cases where the target of the Mr Big sting is accused of killing a woman. Often they use scenarios that involve violence against a woman. It makes that sort of attitude seem acceptable,

and it lets the target know that the organization has the capacity to clean up if one of their own kills a woman. As the operation ramps up, the suspect is made to feel like the police are closing in. Sometimes it's through contact with uniformed officers. Meanwhile, the undercover police get closer to the suspect. I've had situations where the people fall in love essentially with the various characters, not in a romantic sense, but in a friendship sense where oftentimes the best friends they've ever had in their life are these fictitious friends, which is

I think we can all appreciate quite sad. By the end of the operation, it's possible that dozens of scenarios have been played out. Finally, the suspect meets the fictitious Mr. Big, the boss of the organization. That's when the crime boss asks the suspect to tell all. In some cases, they have told the suspect they can protect them from going to jail. They tell the suspect they don't have to take their help. They're given chances to turn it down along the way. Greg told us he lied about killing Sherry because he got scared at the meeting with Mr. Big and the cleanup guy.

One could see why you'd feel a lot of pressure in various areas, both personally with the police, if we could say the penal consequences, but also personal consequences if you cross people that are alleged to be involved in organized criminal organizations where the erasing not only of crimes can occur, but erasing of people can occur. And they make it subtly known to you as a target that they're capable of doing just about anything. Mr. Big Stings often lead to confessions. Or, if they have the information, the suspect might lead the police to evidence. That could be the victim's body, a murder weapon, or other forensic evidence that can be used

against them in court. Convictions are high, acquittals are rare. Defense lawyers like Brian know this when they take on a case. I've never been able to convince a jury that there was a false confession made. Brian says the legitimacy of the confession is often at the heart of the case. When he's working on these cases, he's working for the accused. So naturally, he's looking for problems with the Mr. Big Sting. His approach is to compare and contrast the confessions with the facts. He's looking for holes in the confession.

What parts of it might not be true? He sees other problems with Mr. Big Stings. One of these is how the rules for these operations differ from traditional police investigations. Usually when a person is arrested, all of their communication with police is recorded in the interview room. But in a Mr. Big Sting, it's usually only the final interview and the confession that's recorded. Then there's the law. A confession has to be made of free will. That means there can't be any threats or promises made to get the suspect to confess. The problem with Mr. Biggs at their core is that they're based on exactly those things. Not necessarily direct threats, but there's this subtle threat of this organization being pretty bad.

The other is that there is promises, oftentimes it's promises for a long-term job with the criminal organization. And many times these particular accused persons have difficulty with employment, sometimes they'll have financial problems, sometimes they'll have addiction issues where they're gambling and drinking away other money. So money is a big thing for them. And of course, Brian Feffely brings up the unreliability of confessions. Not only do people potentially confess to things they didn't do, they have done that. And we've proven through other wrongful conviction inquiries and other cases that in fact they have confessed wrongfully

and that's why the protections have been put in place for it. Juries are instructed now on Mr. Big Cases specifically that wrongful conviction inquiries have demonstrated that people have falsely confessed and it's up to them to determine. But confession evidence remains the most damning type of evidence you can get. It's worse than video evidence in my view. If you've confessed to something, especially something that's embarrassing or going to get you in trouble, most people believe you did it. In some cases, for the families of the victims,

Mr. Big could be the only way to seek justice for their loved ones. If you thought the case might go cold otherwise, it makes sense you'd want the police to use every trick in the book to make an arrest. Sherry's sister Michelle knows it's a complicated case, but she has confidence in the RCMP. And I truly think that they have a lot more evidence than we know of, right?

I don't think they would have made an arrest without being sure. You get one kick at the cat, right? So I really think that they know what they're doing and that they've got enough evidence. What would you think would be the best possible outcome now? What would you like to see happen? Well, I would love to see him convicted of murder and in prison till he dies. In 2017, it felt like drugs were everywhere in the news.

So I started a podcast called On Drugs. We covered a lot of ground over two seasons, but there are still so many more stories to tell. I'm Jeff Turner, and I'm back with season three of On Drugs. And this time, it's going to get personal. I don't know who Sober Jeff is. I don't even know if I like that guy. On Drugs is available now wherever you get your podcasts.

We appreciate your help in ensuring a safe and comfortable flight. We're on our way to the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University. Victoria and I want to speak to experts in the field. This school of criminology is one of the largest in Canada. During the course of my career, I've written extensively about homicide and drug policy. I wrote a book about a case that involved a Mr. Bigstein. Neil Boyd is a professor here. of Mr. Big Sting.

Neil Boyd is a professor here. There are certainly cases where doubts have been raised and where concerns have been expressed about the legitimacy of the so-called Mr. Big Sting. But there are circumstances in which it can be very helpful. It's very difficult to find evidence. I just think you have to be very careful because sometimes people do confess to things that they haven't done. It's not that common, but it does happen. Is there enough

regulation to make sure that that happens? And are there ways to make sure that the police are as careful as they should be? There has emerged a body of case law. and so it's really up to the courts to look at that case law and make judgments as to whether or not the guidelines that have been set out have been followed in the particular case and so with a case such as the one just outside of Saskatoon you're going to be looking or the court will ultimately be responsible for determining whether or not what the police did was within the boundaries of appropriate conduct. Neil tells us about the case of Doug Holtham. 20 years ago, Holtham murdered his wife, Leonora, and six-year-old daughter with a hammer in Mission, British Columbia. He beat his eight-year-old son

almost to death. He confessed to Mr. Big, which bolstered the case against him. Before the confession, police had DNA evidence of his children's blood on his shirt and shoe. A jury convicted him of first-degree murder in 1999. His conviction was entirely warranted. So I don't take the position that just because the police have engaged in this kind of activity that it's necessarily suspect. But things can go off the rails and people can, because of fear, say and do things that might not otherwise be true or that they might not otherwise have done. The consequences of a case gone off the rails can be dire.

Kyle Unger spent 14 years in jail for the murder of Bridget Grenier in Manitoba in 1990. Unger confessed during a Mr Big Sting. He was convicted based largely on the confession, testimony from jailhouse informants and a single piece of forensic evidence, a hair found on the victim's clothing. Local police didn't use DNA testing at the time. That identification of the hair was carried out using an older process. But later, DNA testing proved the hair did not belong to Unger.

For that and other reasons, Unger was exonerated, but not before spending a good chunk of his life behind bars. You know, I think if we look at the issue of whether Mr. Big has led to wrongful convictions, the only way we can answer that is by looking at individual cases and carefully assessing all the facts of the case and then making a determination about whether this is an instance in which things have gone off the rails or this is an instance in which this person was essentially deceived into admitting that he committed this

crime. When a judge decides to admit Mr. Bigg confessions as evidence or make a ruling on an appeal, they write in very extensive detail about the legal and ethical reasons why. These decisions become a guide for future judges handling Mr. Big cases. It's how the courts regulate what the police are allowed to do. There's a man in Vancouver who spent five years of his life reading these decisions. This is Jonathan Cross. He has a law degree from the University of Saskatchewan, and he wrote his master's thesis on Mr. Big Stings.

And it's a little bit long for an LLM thesis. Jonathan studied every case he could find up until 2013. That's when he was finishing up his research. He ended up deciding life as a criminal defense lawyer just wasn't for him. But he still keeps more than 100 cases and binders at the bottom of his office closet. I figure I've got space for them, so why not? Case 32. This is Grandinetti. Actually, that's a big case. Jonathan says he can't believe the dramatic stories in these papers. Some could be the plot to an action movie or a crime drama.

Each one is part of a Mr. Big deception carried out by the police. Many are the reason for someone serving a long prison sentence. When he finished writing his thesis back in 2013, Jonathan couldn't believe what the police used to do in Mr. Big Stings. He thought judges in some cases accepted confessions they shouldn't have. Like it's completely nuts. I just don't get it how like this whole thing could kind of develop. I mean, it's important to like solve murders. I mean, it really is. And this kind of offers a resolution. But there's so much crazy stuff going on. And it And in so many of the judgments, it seems like on one side,

the judges are saying, yeah, you gotta be really careful about confession evidence. You gotta be really careful because people will confess to things they didn't do. But then on the other side, it's like, but even though that's the case, well, we're just gonna let all this in

because we just are. I left this part of my education more confused than I was when I went into it. He says reading all of these cases made him think about what it would be like to be the target of a Mr. Big Sting. For me personally, if I was the subject of something so incredibly manipulative, my brain would just kind of go crazy. I wouldn't be a cool operator. I wouldn't be a smooth dude. I mean, to be like, just to have my whole life turn into like this big site kind of gaslighting operation. I think most people would suffer from some altering of perceptions. And that happens in a traditional police interrogation too. But this would be something I think quite a bit more overwhelming.

Things have changed since Cross wrote his thesis. Specifically, the courts have changed the way they handle evidence from these types of investigations. A Mr. Big case out of Newfoundland set new standards for Mr. Big operations. R.V. Hart went to the Supreme Court in 2014. The court was considering the case of Nelson Hart, who was accused of killing his twin daughters. Justice Michael Moldaver wrote that the law didn't offer enough protection to people who confessed to crimes during Mr. Biggs. He said these types of stings can become abusive and produce unreliable confessions,

but they are not necessarily abusive, and they can produce valuable evidence. So they were allowed to continue, but under stricter rules. The decision offered clearer guidelines for judges deciding if Mr. Big evidence should be admissible, and to help them decide what counts as police misconduct. It also changed the playing field for Mr. Big confessions. They are now automatically considered inadmissible. So it's up to the Crown to argue that the jury should get to hear the confession. Then the judge decides if its value as evidence

outweighs its capacity to prejudice the outcome of the trial. Moldaver explained these changes. He said the goal was to strike the best balance between guarding against dangers posed by Mr. Bigstings while making sure the police still have the tools they need to investigate serious crimes. A federal government report examined the impact of the changes. One prediction is that the courts will likely be more restrictive about what types of violent incidents are acceptable in the future. So it is the court's responsibility to find a balance that considers the rights of the accused and the need to seek justice.

What about the police? How are they adapting their operations to fall within the new guidelines? We asked the RCMP in Saskatchewan to talk to us about why they use Mr. Big Stinks and to address some of the criticisms of the technique. A spokesperson replied by email to say they do not discuss investigational techniques, especially the ones they're still using. And that was pretty much it. That was probably the last time I saw her was out here. Sherry's sister says she's relieved there's progress in the police investigation. Michelle Kish knows this isn't the end, only the beginning of a new chapter.

One of the hardest things so far has been trying to make sense of what happened. Like I said, there could be that other crazy scenario that happened that we haven't thought of or we'll never know, you know, the aliens, which I laugh about that because like I really don't think that's what happened. But, but, you know, when you're in these situations, your mind does go everywhere. It goes to every possible scenario. Yeah. Because you're trying to figure it out.

Like, God, what else could be and where else? And, and, you know, even to this day, this all still seems very surreal, right? Like you see this on the news or something pops up and, you know, and there's my sister's pictures. And I'm thinking, oh my God, like, this is, this is us. This is my sister. Not just a Facebook post of someone went missing or whatever. Like, like now it's my sister and so when I was home in Saskatchewan in August we were literally driving past the pit coming back from our family reunion and so I told my my sisters that I wanted to or my sister that I wanted to stop in and seeing the location and knowing that that's where she kind of last was. You know, yeah, it was sad. Sad knowing that that possibly is where her life ended.

Michelle says she still thinks about how Sherry's disappearance affected their mom. She says the stress of losing Sherry played a big part in her mom's death. Like I said, my mom's an angel. I think from heaven she made something happen. She, yep, she was in on it trying to get this figured out because I think she, she, she needs there to be answers. And I kind of, I wished, I wished she had gotten some kind of answers before she passed away. She had gotten some kind of answers before she passed away.

Sherry disappeared on December 7th. I ask if the family has plans for that day. No, because, I don't know. Well, she hasn't been deemed deceased yet. I think we're all waiting until we can have maybe like a proper funeral for Sherry. I don't know. what do you do like of course we i mean in our hearts and minds we're thinking of for sure when when december comes it's yeah of course we're thinking about it but then you just hope and pray that they figure it out and justice is served and then you go on. On the next episode of The Pit. Anytime there's a murder charged before a body is found is very surprising to me.

So obviously the biggest issue with recovering human remains that have been put outside is the interference with the scavengers. So the bigger the scavenger, the more the ability they have to move it. I'm still hoping that at some point her remains are found, you know, so we can all have closure. The Pit is a CBC investigative podcast. The story was written, produced and mixed by Victoria Dinh and me, Alicia Bridges.

Our senior producer is Corrine Larson. Editorial guidance came from Paul Dornstader and David Hutton. Additional help from Karen Yeske, Courtney Markowicz and Keisha Williams. If you enjoyed this podcast, please leave a review on Apple Podcasts or just tell your friends. You can also contact us directly by emailing thepit at cbc.ca.