Speaker 1: On Tuesday, July seventeenth, nineteen seventy three, a local chef
Speaker 1: and father of two, Ting Fong Chan, walked home from
Speaker 1: his night shift in Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada at around six am.
Speaker 1: His body was found beaten and stabbed death near a
Speaker 1: construction site. An eyewitness saw the assailants through the darkness
Speaker 1: and described the group as four or five men with
Speaker 1: long hair. The police asked if the assailants may have
Speaker 1: been indigenous. The eyewitness couldn't say either way without a
Speaker 1: definitive answer, investigators began campassing the local indigenous population, and
Speaker 1: a man named Adam Woodhouse told them about a recent
Speaker 1: gathering at his home attended by Clarence and Russell Woodhouse
Speaker 1: as well as their cousin Brian Anderson. However, this gathering
Speaker 1: happened on Thursday night, not on Monday into Tuesday, the
Speaker 1: night of the crime. Despite the confusion over the date,
Speaker 1: as well as the uncertainty over the assailants ethnicity, Clarence
Speaker 1: and Russell Woodhouse, Brian Anderson, as well as their younger
Speaker 1: friend Allan Woodhouse underwent a series of coercive and in
Speaker 1: some cases, violent interrogations, resulting in four false confessions written
Speaker 1: in a language in which none of them were entirely fluent.
Speaker 1: The trial consisted of the presentation of these alleged confessions
Speaker 1: against four matching recantations, as well as alibi witnesses and
Speaker 1: accusations of police misconduct and brutality. Fifty years later, Brian
Speaker 1: Anderson and Alan Woodhouse share their harrowing story and the
Speaker 1: struggle to clear their names. This is wrongful Conviction. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to wrongful Conviction. This is an episode it's going
Speaker 1: to take everyone who listens on a journey, not just
Speaker 1: far away because this took place in the Great White North,
Speaker 1: but also to a place of disbelief for how the system,
Speaker 1: in this case, the system in Canada, can do what
Speaker 1: it does to innocent civilians. Let me introduce our guests
Speaker 1: and then we'll explain more about the case. With us,
Speaker 1: we have two wrongfully convicted men. First of all, Brian Anderson,
Speaker 1: Welcome to wrongful Conviction. I'm sorry you're here under the services,
Speaker 1: but I'm happy you're here. Thank you and with us
Speaker 1: as well as Alan Woodhouse. So grateful for you being
Speaker 1: here as well.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much for having me here today.
Speaker 1: And joining us. Is an incredible woman named bob and Sody.
Speaker 1: Bobbin is the attorney of record for these men. She
Speaker 1: was the legal director at Innocence Canada at the time
Speaker 1: that she got involved with this case, and she's currently
Speaker 1: got one of the most amazing and interesting jobs, I
Speaker 1: think in the entire world of criminal justice. She is
Speaker 1: the intake director at the Innocence Project of New York.
Speaker 1: So Bobin, Welcome to Wrongful Conviction.
Speaker 3: Thanks so much for having us, Jason.
Speaker 4: So.
Speaker 1: Bobn I almost feel like I want to let you
Speaker 1: set the stage here. I mean, this case is so nuts.
Speaker 1: It involves lies from people in positions of power, false confessions.
Speaker 1: At least one of the men didn't even speak the
Speaker 1: language of the confession that he was signing, that he
Speaker 1: didn't even know was a confession, Jason.
Speaker 3: For me, this was one of the first cases I
Speaker 3: worked on in my role as legal director at Innocence Canada,
Speaker 3: and it's one of those cases that right off the
Speaker 3: batch you know that something isn't right.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 3: My co counsel, Jerome Kennedy has always put it best.
Speaker 3: We started off knowing that this was a nineteen seventy
Speaker 3: three case. It involved the Winnipeg Police service, four young
Speaker 3: Indigenous men and George Dangerfield. And as far as innocence
Speaker 3: Canada was concerned, that is a recipe for wrongful conviction.
Speaker 1: And George Dangerfield just what a name for a guy
Speaker 1: who has the dubious distinction of being the Crown prosecutor
Speaker 1: who is responsible for the most wrongful convictions in Canadian history.
Speaker 1: And he was unfortunately the top prosecutor in Manitoba, Canada
Speaker 1: for thirty years. And just to paint a picture of
Speaker 1: the guys who ended up getting caught in this nightmare,
Speaker 1: Brian Anderson, who's with us today at seventh grade education
Speaker 1: and no knowledge of the criminal legal system. He grew
Speaker 1: up on the Fairford Indian Reserve between Lake Manitoba and
Speaker 1: Lake Saint Mark, about two hundred and thirty kilometers or
Speaker 1: one hundred and forty three miles north of Winnipeg. The
Speaker 1: eldest had ten children. At eighteen, he moved to Winnipeg
Speaker 1: to work and live with his grandparents. And his first
Speaker 1: language was not English. He barely spoke English at all.
Speaker 1: His first language was Ojibwe Salto. And he had no
Speaker 1: criminal record whatsoever. This is important, that's important to know.
Speaker 1: But it turned out not to matter in this case.
Speaker 1: So Brian, tell me about your life growing up. Did
Speaker 1: you have a happy childhood? Yes?
Speaker 4: I did? I think I did.
Speaker 5: You don't know anything about life at that age.
Speaker 1: So right, you're a kid, I mean, let's face it.
Speaker 1: As a teenager you just said yeah, exactly, figuring it
Speaker 1: out just like anybody else. And Alan, what about for you?
Speaker 1: You lived on the Fairport Indian Reserve as well, with
Speaker 1: English as a second language. You had a ninth grade
Speaker 1: education there. You were seventeen years old, but also with
Speaker 1: no criminal record, and moved to Winnipeg two months before
Speaker 1: this awful crime happened. So Alan, what was your life
Speaker 1: like growing up in those times?
Speaker 2: From what you can remember, Well, my childhost is pretty rugged,
Speaker 2: so to speak, of eight brothers and two sisters, as
Speaker 2: I was a lot of people. Brian's younger brother I
Speaker 2: have and I used to be my handout buddy. We're
Speaker 2: up at the same age. Ban were a bit of wolder,
Speaker 2: so he hung out with you a wolder crowd. The
Speaker 2: only reason I was in Winnipeg is because to look
Speaker 2: for work. There's no work in a reserve, of course,
Speaker 2: because I was over sixteen, so I just moved to
Speaker 2: Winnipeg about a couple of months when I got arrested.
Speaker 1: Right and before you were arrested, the police picked up
Speaker 1: Clarence Woodhouse, followed by Russell Woodhouse, then you Alan Woodhouse,
Speaker 1: and lastly Brian Anderson. And the whole thing started with
Speaker 1: a statement from Woodhouse. First of all, that's a lot
Speaker 1: of woodhouses. So just to keep things straight for our audience.
Speaker 1: From what I gather, Woodhouse must be a common name, Brian,
Speaker 1: Are any of you guys related?
Speaker 5: Yes, I am. They are my cousins, which is the Woodhouses.
Speaker 5: Clarence and Russell, we had the same grandfather. We knew
Speaker 5: each other right from the little kids.
Speaker 2: I'm not related to idiotom actually not even Adam Mudos.
Speaker 1: So Clarence and Russell were related to you, Brian. But
Speaker 1: Adam and Allen aren't related to any of you guys, right, yes,
Speaker 1: so the crime itself. July seventeenth, nineteen seventy three, forty
Speaker 1: zho men in ting Pong Chan was beaten and stabbed
Speaker 1: to death near a downtown construction site in Manitoba, which
Speaker 1: is Winnipeg. Mister Chan was a father of two and
Speaker 1: a chef at a restaurant called The Beachcomber. He was
Speaker 1: walking home from the night shift and his body was
Speaker 1: found at six am on the seventeenth. So then comes
Speaker 1: this ridiculous quote unquote investigation.
Speaker 3: For the first couple of days after Chan's body was found,
Speaker 3: no investigation occurred. Essentially, they were doing a scan of
Speaker 3: the neighborhood and they came across a witness named Daisy
Speaker 3: Towel and Daisy, what's interesting about her is she didn't
Speaker 3: really see much at all. What she claims to have
Speaker 3: seen under the light of a lamppost in the middle
Speaker 3: of the night without her glasses, and she indicated that
Speaker 3: she had very poor vision was the outline of four
Speaker 3: or five individuals that had long hair, And when the
Speaker 3: officers put it to her whether she thought they were indigenous,
Speaker 3: she said, well, yes, they could be. And you know,
Speaker 3: the important point here is this was the seventies, and
Speaker 3: so I'm presuming a lot of people had long hair.
Speaker 1: I have fond memories of that era. I mean, long hair,
Speaker 1: great music, and this witness could have easily and vaguely
Speaker 1: stuck me into this group as well. I mean I
Speaker 1: fit that much at the description. That's the only description
Speaker 1: they had. So it's important to note that the police
Speaker 1: offered this blurry cited eyewitness the suggestion that the assailants
Speaker 1: were Indigenous, not the other way around. And Alan, I
Speaker 1: know you eventually became a jail house lawyer. Does it
Speaker 1: strike you as business as usual for the police in
Speaker 1: that era with in doubt, just take an indigenous guy, right,
Speaker 1: just start targeting Indigenous people.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I mean I think goes wrong right away.
Speaker 2: It's Native people even in the reserve. You know, something
Speaker 2: happened outside the reserves. There's better community out there, right
Speaker 2: there's there's been Native people. There'd be police driving around
Speaker 2: looking for so and sorry though, that's the reality of it.
Speaker 3: Unfortunately, the police ended up canvassing the neighborhood on the
Speaker 3: lookout essentially for young Indigenous men. And that's how a
Speaker 3: few days later they came upon Adam Woodhouse's house and
Speaker 3: spoke to him. They also spoke to his common law
Speaker 3: partner and his common law partner's daughter. And what I
Speaker 3: will say is English wasn't even the first language of
Speaker 3: these witnesses. So Adam was also someone who was struggling
Speaker 3: to understand this context, wasn't provided an interpreter, and was
Speaker 3: participating and so when they spoke to Adam on July
Speaker 3: twenty second, he said, well, yes, on the night of
Speaker 3: the murderer, I had a group of young Indigenous men
Speaker 3: with me, including Brian Anderson, Clarence Woodhouse and Russell Woodhouse.
Speaker 3: And he distinctly didn't mention Alan. And what's interesting about
Speaker 3: the fact that he said that is almost immediately following
Speaker 3: his common law partner and his common law partner's daughter
Speaker 3: said yes, these young men were at our house, but
Speaker 3: that actually occurred Thursday and not on the night in question.
Speaker 3: And the reason that's interesting is a lot of the
Speaker 3: information that Adam was recalling from the evening actually related
Speaker 3: to things that happened on Thursday. So, for example, he
Speaker 3: referenced receiving his check he usually receives that on a
Speaker 3: Thursday night. He referenced using that check in order to
Speaker 3: buy beer again as a result of what happened on
Speaker 3: Thursday night. But essentially, the police, ignoring what you know
Speaker 3: his common law partner and her daughter said, decided to
Speaker 3: venture out. And this is when this web began to weave,
Speaker 3: and within twenty four hours they managed to get you
Speaker 3: alleged confessions from Clarence Woodhouse, Russell Woodhouse, Allan Woodhouse and
Speaker 3: Brian Anderson.
Speaker 1: Wow, so no, I mean they didn't even pretend to
Speaker 1: do a real investigation, just the assumption by the police
Speaker 1: that the assailants were indigenous. And Adam Woodhouse told them
Speaker 1: about gathering at his home with Clarence Russell and Brian,
Speaker 1: nothing about a murder or any conspiracy to commit murder
Speaker 1: or any criminal activity at all. And it even turned
Speaker 1: out to be the wrong night entirely. Monday into Tuesday
Speaker 1: was when it happened. This was Thursday, but that didn't matter.
Speaker 1: And now the interrogations and false confessions began in a
Speaker 1: language you guys didn't even.
Speaker 3: Under I think a really important part of this is
Speaker 3: understanding the sequence of the confessions, just to understand how
Speaker 3: they utilized classic red technique despite the fact that everything
Speaker 3: pointed against them. So yes, all four confessions, and this
Speaker 3: is important, all four of the confessions that these boys
Speaker 3: are alleged to have made start off with the exact
Speaker 3: same sentence. All four of them say, on Monday night,
Speaker 3: I was and when I read that, I knew that
Speaker 3: something was amiss. We have four men who are alleged
Speaker 3: to have written these confessions in separate rooms, separate circumstances,
Speaker 3: varying understanding of English, and yet all of their statements
Speaker 3: start the exact same way. And so that's when I
Speaker 3: delved into the actual sequence, like how did they obtain them?
Speaker 3: And what I saw was classic retechnique.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 3: They started off with Clarence. They took him to the scene,
Speaker 3: brought him back to the station, They asked him to
Speaker 3: mark up the body and where it was that he
Speaker 3: had attacked, you know, ting fong Chen, immediately assuming that
Speaker 3: he was the person responsible. Ultimately, this allegedly led to
Speaker 3: his confession. And what's interesting about the confession is it's
Speaker 3: a partial confession and the only person that's mentioned in
Speaker 3: it is Russell. Then they go to Russell and they
Speaker 3: go look at this confession that Clarence gave you. And
Speaker 3: what's interesting about that is that Russell didn't even have
Speaker 3: enough of an understanding of the English language to be
Speaker 3: able to read the confession that Clarence apparently made. So
Speaker 3: they brought Clarence into the room with Russell to read
Speaker 3: to his brother this confession he's alleged to have made.
Speaker 3: And so Russell apparently makes the confession same thing on
Speaker 3: Monday night, I was, and so not only does he
Speaker 3: now mention Clarence himself, but he also references Alan, and
Speaker 3: so that is how Alan is brought into the story,
Speaker 3: and so then Alan is arrested. He is also shown
Speaker 3: the confession that now Clarence has made and subsequently Russell
Speaker 3: have made. And what's interesting about Alan is he was
Speaker 3: subjected to physical abuse because he refused to make this confession.
Speaker 2: That night, in that particular, when I got picked up,
Speaker 2: you know, there was a knock on the door, and
Speaker 2: there's two people standing there in suits. I guess you
Speaker 2: call them planes closed.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 2: He asked me what my name was, So I told
Speaker 2: them who I was. So I said, sorry, grand them
Speaker 2: my wrist. You're the one we're looking for it. So
Speaker 2: I said, way wait, I said, what's going on? I
Speaker 2: want to talk to you. I went downstairs with and
Speaker 2: Mark carr on downstairs and they took me to the
Speaker 2: police station. We were the police. I asked him what
Speaker 2: its this about it? He said murder? I said murder.
Speaker 2: I said, maybe they had found a dead body and
Speaker 2: they wanted me to go and recognize some of the
Speaker 2: body or see what I mean. When we got to
Speaker 2: the police station and they said Okay, where were you
Speaker 2: on Tuesday night? So I tood, not hoom. Who else
Speaker 2: was there? There's nobody there. It's just me. My mother
Speaker 2: and I lived there, just had that little apartment, and
Speaker 2: my mother well she went out a lot, she drank
Speaker 2: a lot. But anyway, so I told him I was
Speaker 2: at home and they said, oh, there's nobody there, said,
Speaker 2: I know, you weren't there. You were at Adams Woodha Streets.
Speaker 2: I said, no, I wasn't there. I was there on Thursday. Yeah.
Speaker 2: They went back and forth for a while and they
Speaker 2: got angrier and angrier, and they started getting physical. I
Speaker 2: mean they were really rough. I mean they were they're
Speaker 2: hitting me. I mean, I was all bloody. So after
Speaker 2: four hours they rode up the statement, told me to
Speaker 2: sign it and then you can go, said, So I
Speaker 2: signed it, I said, After they signed, their hand covered
Speaker 2: me ultimately.
Speaker 3: Again. Interesting, his confession starts off with on Monday night
Speaker 3: I was and the variation there was. Now this confession
Speaker 3: includes Clarence, it includes Russell, it includes Alan, and there
Speaker 3: is the first reference to Brian Anderson. And so then
Speaker 3: they go to Brian and they speak to him, and
Speaker 3: they take Brian to the scene. They show him alleged
Speaker 3: weapons that were utilized, you know, and they show him
Speaker 3: the confessions of the other three points. Like on Monday night, I.
Speaker 5: Was on the twenty third, I got picked up for murder.
Speaker 5: Like I wasn't even a suspect. I was charged already.
Speaker 5: They got me to sign a piece of paper, which
Speaker 5: I did, and I didn't know that was the confession
Speaker 5: that supposedly I had made.
Speaker 1: The idea that you were signing a piece of paper
Speaker 1: in a language you didn't speak with nobody there to
Speaker 1: guide you or help you or advise you. I read
Speaker 1: somewhere that you had thought that it might have been
Speaker 1: just something related to your possessions that they were keeping
Speaker 1: on storage for you while they arrested you. Is that accurate.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 5: What they do is they make you empty your pockets
Speaker 5: and that they put stuff aside and you have to
Speaker 5: sign for them. And that's what I thought it was.
Speaker 5: That's how crooked they were, you know, they didn't care
Speaker 5: just because they had these witnesses they were calling them.
Speaker 5: That's where they based all this stuff from.
Speaker 3: And so at the end of the day, as a
Speaker 3: result of this sort of linear sequential experience, now all
Speaker 3: four boys are alleged to have participated. The statements that
Speaker 3: start very much the same build on each other. So
Speaker 3: first you have just Clarence, then you have Clarence and Russell,
Speaker 3: then you have Clarence Russell and Alan, and finally the
Speaker 3: final statement Clarence Russell, Alan and Brian have participated. And
Speaker 3: so essentially you have each of the young men pointing
Speaker 3: the finger at each other and weaving this web for the.
Speaker 1: Police actually feels a little bit like a Canadian version
Speaker 1: of New York City's own horror show known as The
Speaker 1: Central Park Five, currently known as Exonerated five because they
Speaker 1: use some of the same techniques differently, but you know,
Speaker 1: using everybody against each other and the physical abuse. And
Speaker 1: it's very important for our audience to know that in
Speaker 1: twenty nine percent of the DNA exonerations, the person who
Speaker 1: was proven with absolute certainty scientific certainty to be innocent
Speaker 1: confessed to the crime they didn't commit. Just like in
Speaker 1: this case, Bobin, what about physical or forensic evidence? Did
Speaker 1: they collect any, did they examine it? Was there any?
Speaker 1: Did they even make a show out of trying to
Speaker 1: solve this case?
Speaker 3: So that is where this case gets interesting, Jason. They
Speaker 3: actually did collect a lot of forensic evidence. The Winnipeg
Speaker 3: Police Service collected fiber analysis here microscopy, So there was
Speaker 3: three hairs that were grasped in Ting Fong Chan's hands.
Speaker 3: They had fingerprints, they collected clothing, they undertook presumptive blood tests,
Speaker 3: there was a series of knives that were collected, and
Speaker 3: essentially they used a number of different you know, and
Speaker 3: I used air quote sciences, sciences that have since been
Speaker 3: dubbed junk science to these things. But what's amazing about
Speaker 3: this case is Brian Anderson, Alan Woodhouse and the other
Speaker 3: two co accused were excluded from all of them. So
Speaker 3: they engaged in this efforts to try and get something
Speaker 3: beyond the confession undertaking these sciences, again air quotes, that
Speaker 3: have contributed to a number of wrongful convictions, but in
Speaker 3: this instance, remarkably, these four men were excluded.
Speaker 1: So even when they were using these super subjective, absolute
Speaker 1: junk sciences that are very useful for when you want
Speaker 1: to conjure up corroborating evidence for a false confession or
Speaker 1: a misidentification or a jail house snitch testimony, even when
Speaker 1: they tried to cheat, they failed, where so many other
Speaker 1: unscrupulous prosecutors and law enforcement officials have succeeded time and
Speaker 1: time again. So I mean, I'm sure that there are
Speaker 1: a number of people in the audience scratching their heads
Speaker 1: as I'm doing right now and saying, wait, I thought
Speaker 1: she said they were excluded.
Speaker 3: That's the weirdest thing about this case. So in every
Speaker 3: other case I've ever worked on, there's something more. You know,
Speaker 3: there might be harmark cross that was performed, there may
Speaker 3: be fiber analysis that matches. There might be you know,
Speaker 3: a smudge, fingerprint, or some kind of presumpted blood. But this,
Speaker 3: this is that case that the only thing that ties
Speaker 3: these individuals to the case are these confessions they're alleged
Speaker 3: to have made. All of the air quotes. Science that
Speaker 3: they tried to utilize excluded them, but.
Speaker 1: They marched right ahead as if it included them, right exactly.
Speaker 1: It just keeps piling up, right, So we have the
Speaker 1: blind witness, right, we have the false confessions that might
Speaker 1: as well have been written in Chinese or Greek Portuguese
Speaker 1: because you didn't know what the hell you were signing,
Speaker 1: And the physical and forensic evidence collected does match. So
Speaker 1: it's already the pile of sculpatory evidence and factors is
Speaker 1: growing and growing. But also you had an alibi. It
Speaker 1: wasn't like you were by yourself that night, right.
Speaker 5: That's right now, staying at my grandfather at the time,
Speaker 5: that's where I was. And Clarence and Russell that was
Speaker 5: their residence too.
Speaker 2: Yes, I was at home and my mother can confirm
Speaker 2: that the aster where I was on the guy got killed.
Speaker 2: She said I was at home when she got home,
Speaker 2: but then she said she was drunk. There's the bars
Speaker 2: closed about twelve o'clock. Then she walked from the main
Speaker 2: street to Isabel Street. The that's about fifteen minute to
Speaker 2: twenty minute walk, so that would be about two o'clock
Speaker 2: when I was at home, because she said I was
Speaker 2: complaining to her about her becoming home late, because you know,
Speaker 2: I had to get up in the morning. Were there,
Speaker 2: So I don't I be walking at two o'clock in
Speaker 2: the morning and waking me up, And that's how she remembered.
Speaker 1: So you guys both underwent preliminary hearings. Alan you were
Speaker 1: discharged November nineteen seventy three after the preliminary hearing based
Speaker 1: on the finding that the statement to police was involuntary
Speaker 1: and thereby inadmissible and you were discharged, but you were
Speaker 1: mentioned in the other statements, and then they were still
Speaker 1: able to put you on trial and they had you
Speaker 1: bumped up from juvenile court into adult court. It just
Speaker 1: keeps getting worse to stand trial along with Brian and
Speaker 1: your other two co defendants.
Speaker 2: Right, that's right.
Speaker 1: So now we get to the trial, and you got
Speaker 1: George Dangerfield. We talked about the notorious prosecutor. This trial
Speaker 1: took place February eighteenth through March fifth. Now, obviously you've
Speaker 1: studied it in detail, Bob, and tell us about this trial.
Speaker 3: The only thing here is the confessions the trial. Jidge
Speaker 3: actually says that, and I'm going to read you a
Speaker 3: quote from his instructions to the jury. The whole case
Speaker 3: basically against these accused, each of them, rests on his
Speaker 3: own statement, and that sort of summarizes the trial. The
Speaker 3: entire length of the trial focused on these statements, and
Speaker 3: it was essentially a competition on who was telling the truth.
Speaker 3: You know, you had these supposedly upstanding officers that were
Speaker 3: presenting this case vouching for the fact that these individuals
Speaker 3: had confessed to them. And on the opposite side, you
Speaker 3: had four young indigenous men who were sort of villipied.
Speaker 3: They didn't speak English, they weren't provided with interpreters, and
Speaker 3: essentially it was their word against the police.
Speaker 1: The word of the same police officers who had beaten Allen,
Speaker 1: who was a child. They literally beat him to extract
Speaker 1: the statement that was then, of course, later presented against
Speaker 1: him at trial.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, well that's the only thing. That's the only
Speaker 2: thing they had. I said, Oh yeah, you came out
Speaker 2: and you confessed it, of question, that's what the police said.
Speaker 2: They didn't stand time with the beating, they unied it.
Speaker 2: Of course, even the statement wasn't true. For instance, the
Speaker 2: statement said that I had started this person in the
Speaker 2: stomach a couple of times, but there was no stab
Speaker 2: wounds in the stomach at all.
Speaker 1: It's a classic hallmark of a false confession when the
Speaker 1: details of the statement don't match the physical evidence. And
Speaker 1: there were also the alibi witnesses. But in reading about
Speaker 1: the trial, it really made me sort of throw want
Speaker 1: to throw up in my mouth to read that Brian's
Speaker 1: grandfather was never even called to testify to his alibi.
Speaker 1: It's insane. But then this part I don't know struck
Speaker 1: me in a different sort of sickening type of way,
Speaker 1: which is that Alan, your mother was called the trial,
Speaker 1: which was appropriate, but from what I understand, the jury
Speaker 1: didn't hear her full explanation because the judge freaking interrupted
Speaker 1: her during a pivotal moment of questioning and then sent
Speaker 1: her home without allowing her to answer the question like
Speaker 1: what planet are we on? This is madness?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well today, I don't know why the judge was
Speaker 2: sort of hostile toward her. Yeah, because you don't understand
Speaker 2: what's going on here? Go sit down, Yeah, let's say
Speaker 2: and sat down. It seems to me he just didn't
Speaker 2: want to hear her say anything. I don't know why.
Speaker 2: Maybe he didn't want to hear the truth. He didn't
Speaker 2: want to hear any evidence contrary to what they believed.
Speaker 1: I mean, as a parent, I think anyone who's listening,
Speaker 1: who is a parent, father, mother, whatever, would feel a
Speaker 1: sense of outrage that this is the mother with her
Speaker 1: son's life at stake, and the judge is basically treating
Speaker 1: her as if her life her son's life.
Speaker 3: No, none of it matters, honestly, Jason, it was the
Speaker 3: moment that our read the sentencing decision. I want to
Speaker 3: read this passage to you. So these are the comments
Speaker 3: of the trial judge. She says, this is not a
Speaker 3: jungle where we live. It is not a wild's land.
Speaker 3: We are not subduing this land from anybody. We are
Speaker 3: not still taking it from wild people in this community.
Speaker 3: We want to be able to come and go freely,
Speaker 3: whether the lights are on in the streets or whether
Speaker 3: they are out, whether the police are patrolling the roads
Speaker 3: or whether they aren't. And you know, Jason, extemporaneous comments
Speaker 3: about jungles and wildness not only add nothing useful to
Speaker 3: the trial process, but they conjure up stereotypes that can
Speaker 3: only do unfair damage to indigenous person Standing trial.
Speaker 1: March fifth, nineteen seventy four, Brian Allen and Clarence were
Speaker 1: found guilty of murder and sentence to life in prison,
Speaker 1: and Russell was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to
Speaker 1: ten years. So, Brian and Alan, what was that like
Speaker 1: when that fury came in and sends you to prison
Speaker 1: for the rest of your life.
Speaker 2: Oh, I was shock coming. I was just spitless. It's
Speaker 2: sort of I don't I don't get it. I never
Speaker 2: thought of killing anyone in my life ever.
Speaker 5: I have to just take what was coming to me
Speaker 5: because like a I guess you like a sheep and
Speaker 5: a slaughter house or whatever, like you know this, do
Speaker 5: whatever they want you have.
Speaker 4: You have nothing.
Speaker 5: Once the door loss behind you, you're in that little
Speaker 5: cell by yourself, and then that's all you do, you think.
Speaker 5: I didn't know how to take it to begin with
Speaker 5: a thing, and I thought, wows just do away with myself,
Speaker 5: kill myself.
Speaker 1: And then.
Speaker 5: After thinking about that, I thought, hey, I can't be
Speaker 5: doing this. I'll be helping those buckers. That's what they're
Speaker 5: trying to do to me, you try to kill me.
Speaker 5: Then I promised myself that I would keep going and
Speaker 5: I'm still here.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think it helped me a lot of owned
Speaker 2: out totally alone because there was Brian, There's Clarence and Russell,
Speaker 2: So yeah, I had some some kind of support.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: When I got to personally, I never realized how many
Speaker 2: Native people they were there. There's just full of Native
Speaker 2: people there was. There was hardly any white people there
Speaker 2: at all. It seems I seemed like a big giant reserve.
Speaker 2: When I joined the organization. Now in the Native Brotherhood,
Speaker 2: I was quite active in prison politics. I was present
Speaker 2: for the Brotherhood a few times. And not only that,
Speaker 2: I became a Jellhouse lawyers of all things. Yes, so
Speaker 2: that kept me occupied. I got pretty good in learn
Speaker 2: learning the system. There was a time there I thought, well, now,
Speaker 2: I don't know where this idea came from. I thought,
Speaker 2: you can serve your time where you can let the
Speaker 2: Times review. I think, yeah, I started adopted our philosophy.
Speaker 5: Pick up books or what I would try and distract
Speaker 5: your mind. That kind of kept me sane, Like you know,
Speaker 5: I didn't. I didn't go insane at all. I went
Speaker 5: to school as well, trying to learn something, like you know,
Speaker 5: try and educate myself, to try and learn English. At
Speaker 5: least I could try and speak for myself because my
Speaker 5: lawyer wouldn't speak for me.
Speaker 2: I finished my high school in prison. I took some
Speaker 2: courses here, like auto mechanics took I took electrician and
Speaker 2: I work as electrician every time I'm out. I thought
Speaker 2: schooling would be the best way to get out as
Speaker 2: soon as possible as Enforstnately, they didn't turn it that away,
Speaker 2: because I spent seventeen years in prison before I got
Speaker 2: a full parole.
Speaker 1: That's right, Alan, Despite both of you spending your time
Speaker 1: so well behind the walls. As you both just described,
Speaker 1: you were not granted parole until nineteen ninety, while Brian
Speaker 1: was initially denied parl nineteen eighty because the par Wark
Speaker 1: concluded that Brian had a quote unquote obsession to prove
Speaker 1: his innocence. I mean, of course, but they said that
Speaker 1: that could potentially result in his violating release conditions. Like what, okay,
Speaker 1: what are we through the looking glass here? I mean,
Speaker 1: you can't win in that situation. An innocent man not
Speaker 1: deserving a parole. It's just totally asked backwards. But there
Speaker 1: was a man that I read about who was a
Speaker 1: fierce advocate for you, Brian. And that guy's name was
Speaker 1: Dick Skelding.
Speaker 5: He was a school teacher. And then I asked him
Speaker 5: to help me write a letter to my lawyer. He
Speaker 5: helped me out and then he says, oh, I'll send
Speaker 5: him a letter to He said, after that the lawyer,
Speaker 5: I had tried to get him fired because he's trying
Speaker 5: to help me. And then he was pissed off at that.
Speaker 5: He said there's something going on here. He said, something wrong.
Speaker 5: You're like a lawyer like that, he's supposed to be
Speaker 5: helping and he's against you. And then he says, would
Speaker 5: you take a light detector? He said, so, I said okay,
Speaker 5: and then I passed it, of course, and then after
Speaker 5: that he contacted the CTV News and then they came
Speaker 5: in interviewed me over there.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, he died in nineteen eighty two, but you carried on,
Speaker 1: and as you mentioned, the CTV did its story on
Speaker 1: your case, Brian called the Anderson Confession. And you know,
Speaker 1: sometimes pressure breaks pipes. So you were ultimately released on
Speaker 1: full parole in nineteen eighty three, ten years after your arrest.
Speaker 1: But then Alan, you spent seventeen years in prison before
Speaker 1: being granted parole on May twenty third, nineteen ninety.
Speaker 2: Well, they wanted me to admit that kill somebody, and
Speaker 2: I just couldn't bring miss out to tell you I
Speaker 2: got I didn't kill anybody. Finally, I think this sort
Speaker 2: of said they weren't going to get me to say
Speaker 2: that killed somebody. I think one of the members said,
Speaker 2: you know, he said, we can't base our decisi't based
Speaker 2: on what you say. We have to base just isn't
Speaker 2: based on the fact that you were convicted. Even if
Speaker 2: you were in and they granted me a parole I
Speaker 2: think in March, and then I said, okay, you can
Speaker 2: get on me twenty three, nineteen ninety. So I went
Speaker 2: to the halfway house, you know, which is just another prison.
Speaker 2: So I stayed there another six months. So sir, it's
Speaker 2: a gradual release. You know, you don't just walk over there. Yeah.
Speaker 2: There some parole officers ra attitude. You're trying to find
Speaker 2: excuses to send you back to prison. The current one
Speaker 2: is actually pretty good right now. So it's actually very
Speaker 2: good completely the elevance. Oh, I've had really bad parole officers.
Speaker 2: I've been suspended a few times. I hardly got out
Speaker 2: on habeas corpus. Three times my parole officers revoked my parole.
Speaker 2: I had to take him to court to reinstace my parole.
Speaker 2: Take me three times, and they finally I told him
Speaker 2: that the next time I caught him on hebis corpus,
Speaker 2: I will be filing civil suit. So far there left
Speaker 2: me alone. But like today, I could be suspended right now.
Speaker 2: You know, I can't be in chill tomorrow. That's just
Speaker 2: the way it.
Speaker 1: Is, Brian. For you for was revolt to suspend it
Speaker 1: and regranted numerous time. We've talked about this before, you
Speaker 1: and I about sort of the prison outside of the prison, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Well, I had such a racist parole officer because of him,
Speaker 5: I went back and forth. He told me he was
Speaker 5: an ex cop. He was really after me like any
Speaker 5: little thing. Even when he used to come visit me.
Speaker 5: He put his phone or whatever tape recorder aside. He said, well,
Speaker 5: I'm going to turn this off first so it don't
Speaker 5: get interrupted, and he's recording me all this time. You know,
Speaker 5: I could see that. And then he had said, well,
Speaker 5: like you know, what we say and what the courts
Speaker 5: say are two different things. Don't bet on it. He
Speaker 5: told me, like, you know, like you're going to go back,
Speaker 5: like he made a decision already. I was going to
Speaker 5: get revoked, revoked my parole. I was glad to get
Speaker 5: rid of him. Finally they gave me another one, which
Speaker 5: is a woman after that, and then she was nice
Speaker 5: to me, and I never then it went back after that.
Speaker 5: I'm still with it today. Like you know, I have
Speaker 5: I have like a chain, like a lease. I can
Speaker 5: only go so far, like as a radius. I can't
Speaker 5: go past eighty kilometers from where I'm at I can
Speaker 5: get thrown back in jail for that, for being out
Speaker 5: of the boundary.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's all these years later. It's so crazy that
Speaker 1: in Canada they do it much the same way we
Speaker 1: do here, which is try to make their lives as
Speaker 1: difficult as possible after their feed whether they're innocent or guilty.
Speaker 1: Of course, if you're declared actually innocent, then they don't
Speaker 1: put you on parole here. But I always say we
Speaker 1: should build ramps for people coming out of prison so
Speaker 1: they can get back on their feet, join their community,
Speaker 1: get back with their family, go to school, become contributing
Speaker 1: members of society. Instead, we put up roadblocks every place
Speaker 1: we can and put ice in the road and nail
Speaker 1: so you get tripped up and you go right back
Speaker 1: to prison. There's forty four hundred different restrictions in America
Speaker 1: on parole and probation, over forty four hundred, some of
Speaker 1: them make it virtually impossible for somebody to remain free.
Speaker 1: And sad to hear that it's the same way in Canada.
Speaker 5: Exactly, Like you know, like what I didn't like about
Speaker 5: this too, is that like somebody come from another part
Speaker 5: of the world like you, on the other side of
Speaker 5: the world, for example, and come and tell me how
Speaker 5: to live my life in my own country. You know
Speaker 5: that pisces me off try to control my life, still
Speaker 5: do I don't like that?
Speaker 4: I should be free?
Speaker 1: So they have yet to declare you both actually listen,
Speaker 1: all these decades later, while they continue to keep their
Speaker 1: hooks into you, and as time has passed, the fight
Speaker 1: to clear your names has remained constant, but the process
Speaker 1: is maddeningly slow. In fact, the presence of Bob and
Speaker 1: with us today starts a while back with a legend
Speaker 1: in the innocence community who has since then passed.
Speaker 5: Hurricane Carter's name came up. I was told to contact
Speaker 5: Hurricane Carter. They were called Aidwick. Now they're called Innocence Canada.
Speaker 5: I didn't know anything about Innocence Canada. There was the
Speaker 5: four cases that came up, people that were convicted from
Speaker 5: George Landerfield. Their cases were looked after. They've been dealt
Speaker 5: with already, and I believe my case was ahead of them,
Speaker 5: but I haven't been looked at it all.
Speaker 1: So, Bobin, when did you and Jerome Kennedy get involved
Speaker 1: and take us right up to the present to where
Speaker 1: the case is at right now?
Speaker 3: Jerome and I became involved in twenty seventeen, and that
Speaker 3: was when Innocence Canada was going under a bit of
Speaker 3: a shift. So what Jerome Kennedy did was review every
Speaker 3: single file that was on our roster and evaluate it.
Speaker 3: I think it was days into me starting my role
Speaker 3: as legal director, we started working on this case and
Speaker 3: so almost instantly, over the course of the next maybe
Speaker 3: year year and a half, we were pouring over every document,
Speaker 3: calling every institution, trying to put together this file and
Speaker 3: figure out a way in because I think the struggle
Speaker 3: in this case was they were so obviously innocent. The
Speaker 3: only thing here was the confession, and we just couldn't
Speaker 3: figure out why it was they were convicted. And so
Speaker 3: we submitted Brian's case at the beginning of twenty nineteen
Speaker 3: to an organization known as the CCRG, So that's the
Speaker 3: Criminal Convictions Review Group and essentially that is the sub
Speaker 3: department of our Ministry of Justice. And in Canada, what
Speaker 3: this process involves is us filing what is known as
Speaker 3: a Section ninety six point one application, and the Ministry
Speaker 3: on their website provides you about three pages in order
Speaker 3: to be able to make a person's claim of innocence.
Speaker 3: But ultimately Brian and Allen's combined applications ended up being
Speaker 3: three hundred pages of us noting everything we had found,
Speaker 3: and was accompanied by I think almost five or six
Speaker 3: banker's boxes of evidence we had collected over the years
Speaker 3: what had initially only started off with the four confessions.
Speaker 3: So presently Brian's was filed in twenty nineteen. The CCRG
Speaker 3: actually approached us and asked us to file Allen's in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty, and so we filed his application in February,
Speaker 3: sort of as a supplement to the two. And now
Speaker 3: it's still before the CCRG being considered and it's a
Speaker 3: long process. We've been waiting for a while and we're
Speaker 3: really hoping that the Minister makes a decision soon.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It really just pisses me off how easy it
Speaker 1: is to throw a few good men's lives away, but
Speaker 1: then to of course to undo that dirty work, is it?
Speaker 1: You know, Well, now we know it's a fifty year
Speaker 1: uphill struggle with Baker's boxes of material that takes years
Speaker 1: to a mass and of course many more years to
Speaker 1: get in front of anybody who's in a position to
Speaker 1: do anything about it.
Speaker 3: That's the thing about wrongful convictions. It is so easy
Speaker 3: to convict someone and here we are fifty years later,
Speaker 3: still trying to undo it. You know, I started on
Speaker 3: it twenty seventeen. It is now twenty twenty two, just
Speaker 3: to get an idea of how long this process takes.
Speaker 3: And I am just on the tail end of Alan
Speaker 3: and Brian's efforts to sort of undo what happened to them.
Speaker 1: And if any of our listeners want to support your efforts,
Speaker 1: is there a website that can go to.
Speaker 3: So the ask for us is supporting organizations like an
Speaker 3: Since Canada, we have so little resources, and to Brian's point,
Speaker 3: it takes us years to even get to the point
Speaker 3: that we have enough resources to be able to review
Speaker 3: and evaluate a case. And in the absence of us
Speaker 3: doing so, there is no one else. There is no
Speaker 3: one else that is doing this work. And so people
Speaker 3: like Brian are forced to wait in the queue until
Speaker 3: we have enough resources ability to reach that file. And
Speaker 3: this is a human being that is waiting for us,
Speaker 3: that is waiting for us to review their case. And
Speaker 3: so all I'd ask, you know, the pitch to the
Speaker 3: audience would be to support your local wrongful conviction organization.
Speaker 3: Make sure that you're able to contribute to them in
Speaker 3: that way. And when there are policy matters that are
Speaker 3: coming up or opportunities to support, please do, please.
Speaker 1: Do, amen, So keep your ear to the ground. People
Speaker 1: support your local innocence organizations as well as larger ones
Speaker 1: like Innocence Canada. I mean the money go a long
Speaker 1: way with Innocence Canada, believe me, and we'll have their
Speaker 1: site linked in the bio. So now we come, of course,
Speaker 1: to my favorite part of the show. Closing Arguments is
Speaker 1: the section of the show where first of all, I
Speaker 1: thank you all of you for being here and sharing
Speaker 1: this unreal story. I'm gonna turn my microphone off, kick
Speaker 1: back in my chair with my headphones on, if I
Speaker 1: close my eyes and just zone in on whatever else
Speaker 1: you want to share. Bobin, please start us off, and
Speaker 1: then I'll leave it up to you to hand the
Speaker 1: mic off to whoever you want to have go next,
Speaker 1: and then the other guy will take us off into
Speaker 1: the sunset.
Speaker 3: The only thing I will say is, for almost fifty years,
Speaker 3: Brian and Alan have maintained their innocence. They have spent
Speaker 3: the majority of their life marked as murderers, and yet
Speaker 3: every day, both of them wake up, continue to fight
Speaker 3: to clear their name. And you know, as Jason mentioned
Speaker 3: in one of the parole reports that I read, they
Speaker 3: talk about Brian's session with his innocence, and in both
Speaker 3: Brian and Allen's case, their obsession with proving their innocence
Speaker 3: has never wavered. Their story is one of enduring strength, determination,
Speaker 3: and perseverance.
Speaker 5: Yes, well, I got to keep crying. I can't give up.
Speaker 5: I need but I need help. I there's nothing I can.
Speaker 4: Do by myself.
Speaker 5: Whoever's out there we can help, will even better.
Speaker 4: That's what I need.
Speaker 2: Oh, thank you very much for having me here. There
Speaker 2: was a great privilege to be here. I would like
Speaker 2: the audience and all that. You know, we always think
Speaker 2: about justice, but justice has to come soon. I can't
Speaker 2: just steal happen and then nothing, nothing happens. So we
Speaker 2: have to make a decision. This review has to come
Speaker 2: to an end at some point. I just wish they'd
Speaker 2: make a decision quickly because just think also are stressful,
Speaker 2: the fact that this is hanging over you. Well, when
Speaker 2: am I getting out? You know why? Am I getting out?
Speaker 2: Day in and day out? You know it? Just where's
Speaker 2: the oat? Psychologically dreaming. Please be aware of that there's
Speaker 2: a lot of injustice in this world, and it's people,
Speaker 2: and we always think it'll never happen to me, but
Speaker 2: it does happen. I certainly never told you what happened
Speaker 2: to me.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to
Speaker 1: thank our production team Connor Hall, Jeff Cliburn, and Kevin Wardis,
Speaker 1: with research by Lyla Robinson. The music in this production
Speaker 1: was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph.
Speaker 1: Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction,
Speaker 1: on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction podcast, and on Twitter at
Speaker 1: wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava for Good. On
Speaker 1: all three platforms, you can also follow me on both
Speaker 1: TikTok and Instagram at It's Jason Flahm. Ravel Conviction is
Speaker 1: the production of Lava for Good Podcasts and association with
Speaker 1: Signal Company Number one