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