Uncover - S5 "Sharmini" E5: I Don't Recall

Episode Date: September 12, 2019

Sharmini, episode 5 - Michelle questions Tippett on the shifting details of his stories, while he firmly maintains his innocence. His own words from months ago —and from 1999— contain many contradictions. For transcripts of this series, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/uncover/uncover-season-5-sharmini-transcripts-listen-1.5277530

Celine Dion. My dream, to be an international star. Could it happen again? Could Celine Dion happen again? I'm Thomas Leblanc, and Celine Understood is a four-part series from CBC Podcasts and CBC News, where I piece together the surprising circumstances that helped manufacture Celine Dion, the pop icon. Celine Understood. Available wherever you get your podcasts. This is a CBC Podcast.

Well, Michelle, if you had any sympathy, you would take a neutral position. And after 20 years, maybe you could give Stanley a little bit of the benefit of the doubt, but you are weighing the scales against him. What we've been doing for the last few months is going through all the court documents, looking at the cases. I have gone into this with an open mind, and I'm just trying to figure out where the truth is.

Well, you're kind of leaning one way, Michelle. He can't get out of jail. It sounds like he's there indefinitely. What have you got to gain from that? He is already treated worse than anybody who would have been convicted. Maybe you can take that approach in your story. Michelle, I hope that I have made a difference in you, and it will shed some light, and you will try a different angle

because with my understanding, if we're supposed to be innocent before proven guilty, Stanley has not been proven guilty for the murder of Charmaine. This is Stanley Tippett's cousin, Rick Steiner. Hello. Our phone call actually started out friendly enough. Michelle? Hi, Rick. How are you?

I'm okay. Thanks. Yourself? I'm good. Thank you for taking the time. It was Tippett who gave me Rick's name and number. Did Stanley let you know that I was going to be calling? I'm not sure that he said you were going to call or he was going to call you or something or other, but absolutely to be in touch. Okay, great. I'm happy to that he said you were going to call or he's going to call you or something or other, but absolutely to be in touch. Okay, great.

I'm happy to speak with Rick, but it only takes 20 minutes before he gets frustrated. I'm so disappointed with the direction that I found you're taking, Michelle. I was really quite uplifted to think that somebody was going to maybe be able to help Stanley out after all this time. He believes I should be working to clear Tippett's name.

He says that because of the way his cousin looks, everyone just presumes he's guilty. And he repeats Tippett's assertion that he was wrongfully convicted for the sexual assault of the 12-year-old girl. And I would really appreciate it if you would be focusing on something more like that than trying to hurt Stanley again. He's been through enough. Rick is annoyed that I'm even reinvestigating Sharmini's case. Why would somebody be bringing that up again after 20 years?

It doesn't look like anything is going to convict him or they would have done it now. He is in jail now for life people that do murder people and are convicted do not spend that much time in jail michelle shake your head please come on now have a heart think about it put yourself in that situation it could happen to anybody i'm sorry to get you upset. Because when is enough enough? Michelle, lay off. Stanley doesn't have many choices. He is kind of grasping, hoping that you can help him out. And instead, it sounds to me like you're trying to put another nail in the coffin. Sharmini left home that morning

to go to a brand new job. We have not been able to find that job she was going to. I want to play my son's innocent, but it's kind of hard to picture, you know? Never, ever have I met a man like him and dealt with a lot of

serious offenders. Never have I ever come across a person like Stanley Tipper. I'm prepared to assume Stanley is telling the truth, and I think everyone should. I think it's important for the public to know there is evidence that supports my innocence. I'm Michelle Shepard, and this is Uncover. Charmini. Chapter 5. I Don't Recall. Michelle, please, please, please, have a heart.

I do, Rick, and I appreciate you speaking with me. I really do. I'll be back in touch if I have specific questions, and also you have my number now. Don't be cruel with this. Think about it. There are other human beings involved that are less fortunate than you. This isn't about...

Take that angle. There certainly are. I agree. Do it to protect the innocent Michelle, please. Okay, take care. Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. No, you don't.

Anyway, thanks. Bye. Actually, I did appreciate his time. It's not easy talking to a journalist. Yes, his tone was absolutely off-putting. Condescending, paternalistic, while knowing nothing about me, or giving me a chance to explain the podcast. But I let him talk for most of the call. And I have to admit, he kind of threw me.

My Achilles heel is that, unlike some of my journalism colleagues, I don't relish confrontation. It always unnerves me. And what if Rick had a point? Am I missing something? Could Tippett have been a marked man for 20 years because he was once a suspect in Sharmini's killing? This brings me back to where we started.

What if Tippett isn't guilty. I wanted to say before, I guess, just that I am only willing to speak about wrongful conviction and I'm not prepared to talk about anything else because I have nothing else to add. Well, I mean, as I said last time, I obviously can't force you to talk about something you don't want to talk about, so I'm going to ask all the questions I want to ask and then you answer

what you feel you're able to answer. Okay. We're back talking to Tippett. It's our second interview with him in about two months. I want to dig deeper into his claim that he was wrongfully convicted for the assault of the 12-year-old girl in Peterborough. Our goal in the last interview was just to keep him talking. But now we need to be specific and drill down on his inconsistencies. We've come to Beaver Creek Institution in Gravenhurst, Ontario. He's been moved here from Workworth.

Why don't we just back up a bit and tell me why you were transferred here. Things were getting quite violent. Workworth was changing a lot. With all the increasing violence that was going on, I felt that it was in my only best interest to take steps to protect myself and also move to a better environment. Beaver Creek is what's known as a minimum-medium prison. It's northeast of Toronto, in Ontario's cottage country. minimum-medium prison. It's northeast of Toronto in Ontario's cottage country. Tippett is still designated a medium security inmate, just as he was at Warkworth, but Beaver Creek is very different. It's quieter here. Gone is the traditional cacophony of incarceration, the constant clanging of metal doors, the shouting, the intercom with disembodied, monotone voices.

I mean, it's still a prison. There's still barbed wire and guards. But inmates, they live in communal houses and walk around the grounds more freely. It's surrounded by a forest. You can actually hear the birds. If the government ever decides to shut some of its prisons, this location could be sold as a perfect escape from the city. In the time since we've met, we've interviewed a lot of people. So I think it's only fair to give you a chance to kind of try and clear up some inconsistencies and things that you've said to me or things that other people may have said and you might want to respond to.

I'll see what the questions you have and whether I'm prepared to, you know, talk about that, that's fine. My intentions of being here today is to talk about my wrongful conviction and about, you know, like I feel that we owe it to the victim. We owe it to her, to her family. We owe it to, you know, you know, the public. We owe it to them to have the truth out there. And I believe that it's important that people know about the DNA evidence.

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. So let's talk about the DNA. Tippett has been mentioning this since the first time we met. His mother and his cousin Rick, they both emphasize it too. Tippett maintains that the DNA evidence will prove he never attacked the 12-year-old girl. The DNA shows that on the tank top of the victim they found semen. When you look at the Ontario Court of Appeal judgment it actually says two donors was found on the tank top. And the appellate submits that this represents a serious misapprehension of the evidence by the trial judge because finding sperms from two men was consistent with the appellate's carjacking story.

This is the crux of Tippett's wrongful conviction argument. And stay with me here because I'm going to get a little into the weeds. At Tippett's trial in 2009, a judge found him guilty. He notes in his ruling that the victim's clothing only had her DNA on it. But evidence at the trial actually showed there were traces of sperm cells on her tank top from two different men. At his appeal, Tibbett argued that this evidence was critical to supporting his version of events, that he was carjacked by two men and they were the ones to sexually assault the girl. But what he doesn't mention is that the samples were very small,

just a minuscule number of cells, millions fewer than you would normally see if there was recent sexual activity. I want people to know that at my trial there was evidence from the DNA that the DNA did not match me. And they brushed it off as nothing but a laundry transfer. I'd never heard of a laundry transfer, but it's a thing. And it's exactly what it sounds like. In the laundry, traces of sperm cells can transfer from one item of clothing to another. And a forensic expert testified at Tippett's trial that this was one plausible explanation

for the sperm cells on the victim's tank top. In 2015, Tippett lost the appeal. The appellate judge conceded that while the trial judge erred by not noting the sperm cells, the error was not significant. In fact, he noted that the male DNA proved nothing. There wasn't enough of a sample to match it to anyone. So it didn't point to somebody else sexually assaulting the 12-year-old, nor did it convict Tippett. It was simply inconclusive. But the other evidence, including testimony from witnesses

such as the police officer who said he saw Tippett fleeing the scene or the victim's friends, that, that was enough to convict Tippett. In denying the appeal and upholding Tippett's conviction, the appellate judge wrote that Tippett's carjacking defense was completely unbelievable. So is there at any point you think, I have this very inebriated 12-year-old, this child, in the car with me,

why don't you call 911? I'm getting carjacked by two guys, and how can I, you know, say, hey, we're going to call the police now. I was getting carjacked. But Tippett isn't letting go. He is now asking for a review of the DNA analysis from the Minister of Justice. I actually believe everybody deserves a second chance I really fundamentally do and I believe good people can do bad things I think we're all capable of it and I respect those people who admit to what they did and then they pay their price and then they have another chance. You could have that. You really could. But you're going to die in jail if you keep denying that you did certain crimes.

You know that, right? I know that I believe in my heart that the truth will come out, and I believe that when the evidence comes out, I will be exonerated. For both this crime and Sharmini. I keep trying to go back to Sharmini, but he won't. I didn't get, I wasn't charged, and I'm, you know, I have nothing to do with Sharmini. But in the court of public opinion, you're still convicted. People can have an opinion,

and I'm only responsible for my own actions. I'm not responsible for what other people do. What do you want to say to Sharmini's family? Because they do think you killed her. I can only say that I didn't do anything wrong. And my heart goes out to their family. And I hope that the person responsible does, you know. Fortunately, I don't think that's going to happen.

You know, I just wish that this never happened. You know, like, I think this never happened. You know, like, I think this is horrible, and there's nothing that can be said. Like, I wish I could help, but I can't. You said you don't think the person responsible will be held responsible. Why? I think that, you know, like, to me, I feel that people should, you you know, like investigators, they should have done a better job by investigating.

You know, I think they went in the wrong direction. And I think that they wasted a lot of time and valuable time. valuable time. When we began looking into Sharmini's case, I wasn't sure Tippett was guilty. We've done our homework. We tracked down witnesses from 20 years ago. We learned about his other crimes and how closely some evidence

overlapped with Sharmini's case. And we did our due diligence into his claim of being wrongly convicted. The court records from his dangerous offender hearing, the testimony from cops, psychiatrists, and those who know him, they speak, no, they shout for themselves. He's a risk to society. Tippett has applied for parole, but was denied. So yes, he's in jail.

But not for Sharmini's killing. And while it's unlikely he'll get parole, it's possible. It's so frustrating. I know Tippett's not going to confess. Everybody told us he wouldn't. I've read and re-read his psychological profile, and I'm not a trained interrogator. Let me just finish, Stanley.

If you can't recall something, don't answer it. But don't lie. And you promised. I'm not lying. I'm being truthful. We all make mistakes. We all do things that are wrong. But I'm not going to admit to something I didn't do.

So in the article in 1999, I'm just going to read you what you told me at that time. And it said, Tippett was able to fit in among the youths in the building and with only occasional work cutting grass, he had lots of time. And he said he took Sharmini, her brothers, and others in the building swimming.

He also taught judo to about 10 of the youths. Tippett stressed he was always very careful to get the parents' permission before walking or driving the youths anywhere. I don't recall saying, I don't recall those comments. Again, this is something that I'm not comfortable talking about something that, not uh i'm not comfortable talking about something that um especially with 20 20 years ago i'm not i understand but i mean so much of what you want to prove in this case and all your cases goes to your credibility and you know that others have called you a liar we went through that last time

and you said that you've admitted to the times you've lied before. So I think it's really important for you to clear this up for your own credibility. Well, I'm not saying I was lying about anything. I just don't recall the comments. I don't recall what I've said. And I don't want to be saying, I don't want to be adding more. No, listen, I understand not wanting to get into details, but last time we did an interview, I asked you, please be honest. So last time I asked you this question about the kids, and you said, I wouldn't give them a ride in my vehicle.

No, no, no, no. A couple times I told them they could come along, and maybe with their families they could drive there in their car that was a couple months ago 20 years ago you told me that you had lots of time and you would give them rides so I'm trying to figure out what the truth is here if you didn't recall you could have told me that last time I don't recall but you specifically deny what you said before. Do you understand where the problem is?

I'm not exactly sure exactly what you want me to say. Okay, then I'll just make it really, really simple. I mean, we can do yes and no answers if you want. Did you ever teach kids judo? No. You never did. Did you ever drive kids in the building to swimming lessons? No. No. I don't recall my conversation, what I said 20 years ago. But I'm showing you the quote in a newspaper. Oh, okay. No, I don't recall what I said 20 years ago. Why do you think

you would say that to me? I don't recall my conversation. I don't recall having that conversation. You don't recall speaking with me? No, I don't recall saying, you know, what I said, I don't recall what my conversation was. Okay, so let me go to one other. We did talk last time when we did our interview and 20 years ago about this issue of the job. And I know this has, you know, plagued you over the years in both Sharmini's case and a couple others. So I want to review that. Just to, you know, stop you there. I'm not interested in talking about the Sharmini case or anything else to do with that. Why? Because I feel that this is something that should be left with the proper authorities,

like the investigation, because, you know, as it's an open investigation, I don't want to be talking about something that I have no other information that can help the case. But you can. I believe that I don't, and I don't wish to discuss any further. But he hasn't said anything about the job offer, and that is so crucial to Sharmini's case.

So I keep going back to it. So this is what you told me 20 years ago. He, he being you, he at no time offered her a job, he said. But did provide her with an application for a North York swimming pool as a favor? The swimming pool provided her a job. They provided the application to her. Yes. Okay, so they had the application to her yes okay so let so they had the application but what you told me

20 20 years ago the application okay i'm just going to read you what you told me 20 years ago since he being you often accompanied youths to the pool he had heard there were summer job openings he brought the application to her apartment this this is Sharmini's apartment, the week before he moved, which he said was the last time he spoke to her. No, I don't recall that, no. Well, this is what you told me. I don't recall making that, I don't recall making that comment. Okay, well, I'm a journalist, I don't make things up. I'm saying I don't recall making that comment. Okay, so I'm telling you that you, that's fine if you don't recall it, but I'm telling you that's what you told me.

So now you're telling me that you never gave her an application. That's correct. I never gave her. Okay, so you were lying back then. I was never lying and I never and I don't remember saying that. I don't believe I said that. You know, like, I don't know where that is coming from. I don't recall that at all. Can I be super honest with you?

Yes. I mean, I've been a journalist a long time. You with you? Yes. I mean, I've been a journalist a long time, you know that. Yes. This is a weird position for me to be in, because usually I'm writing about, you know, the underdog and miscarriages of justice. I still think that you killed Charmini. I didn't.

And I don't want to discuss. But help me. Help me believe that you didn't. And saying I'm not going to comment. It is not my, you know, I have a right to not, you know, like basically, I don't feel that I should have to talk about anything else. We're just going in circles now. It's been almost three hours and it's time to go. Do you think you'll get parole?

I believe that eventually I will. Basically, I have to show that I, you know, I can be managed in the community. Do you think this facility is one step closer to that being here? Yes, it is. Plus, I also have a lot of a lot of things have been, you know, like my parole officers are good, you know, they're good. And they say, you know, one of the things that your file information shows this, but you demonstrate over the 10 years that you're not like that. I think, though, you have to take responsibility for your crimes. Yeah, it doesn't help when you maintain your innocence.

Yeah, it doesn't help when you maintain your innocence. For someone who is always so careful with details, it's curious that Tippett's story is changing. He now denies giving Sharmini a job application. Is that because he never did, or because he got caught doing the same thing with other girls and young women. Does he worry now it will make him look guilty? And there are other details he's changed. During our interview 20 years ago, he said he took some of the children in his building to swimming and judo. And in our

first interview, when he was at Warkworth, he even called himself a role model. And you're always really good with kids, aren't you? I remember that even from 20 years ago in the Don Mills building that you knew a lot of the kids at that time. Yeah, I did. I was involved. I was involved. Why is that? Because I basically like to help kids. It's hard to describe. They see that there's a role model. Tibbett's story from 20 years ago has changed. It's even changed in the last two months. How can his inconsistencies not be important? That's next time on Uncover Sharmini.

I never knew, like for a very long time I had no idea. Like I was young so I think I was sheltered from some of the rumors and stuff which I found out about later. But once I had like really thought about it and Tippett kind of came to mind it was very obvious so to me there was no real question about anything else like because I was so close to my sister like I knew I knew when she left I knew she was leaving. I was there with her when we used to go to like the swimming pool with this guy. Thank you. Our digital producer is Judy Ziyi Gu. Chris Oak is our story editor. Our video producer is Evan Agard.

Transcripts by Rasha Shahada, Varad Mehta, and Carol Park. Our senior producer of CBC Podcasts is Tanya Springer. And the executive producer is Arif Noorani. If you like this season of Uncover, check out Uncover, the cat lady case. In 1998, 77-year-old Joan Lawrence vanished without a trace. All police could find were her cats shot dead. The case remains unsolved, but unsealed documents and new witnesses are shedding a light on one of cottage country's darkest crimes. Subscribe to Uncover wherever you get your podcasts.

The Dirtbag Podcast is a production of the CBC.