Lorna Poplak

Uncategorized

A DISTURBING INTERVIEW FROM THE CBC ARCHIVES

PAUL ROBERT SOLES (1930-2021)

 

“Imagine sitting down to question someone wearing a terrifying black mask with slits cut out for eyeholes! That’s what happened to CBC reporter Paul Soles in a television interview with Canada’s last hangman just before capital punishment was abolished in 1976.”

Excerpt from Drop Dead: A Horrible History of Hanging in Canada

Looking like a deer caught in the headlights, Soles started by asking executioner John Ellis if he wore the mask for executions.

This was part of their conversation:

Paul Soles: Why are you wearing a black mask at this time?
John Ellis: This is just to keep my identity a secret.
Paul Soles: You don’t wear it at the time of an execution?
John Ellis:  No.  All I wear is a black suit, black bow, white shirt, and black shoes…. I’m not there to frighten him. I’m there to execute him.

Ellis made it clear that he was a firm believer in capital punishment. Asked about opponents of hanging, he told Soles: “they don’t realize just how humane it is. Unlike electrocution.… People want to die rather than spend life in prison.”

Later in the interview, Soles asked: “If the vote goes for abolition, and there’s no longer a need of a hangman, how do you think you personally will feel?” To which Ellis replied without hesitation, “Well, I’ll feel that I’ve served the country in the best way that I know how.… I have met the requirements that the country required. I’ve done my job and I’m retired.”

As I note in Drop Dead, the vote did go for abolition in 1976, putting an unceremonious end to Ellis’s professional life. According to one account, the retiree, then in his fifties, took to spending the winter months in Florida like thousands of other Canadian snowbirds; another report in 1984 had him living in the Bahamas. What is known for certain is that Ellis was not short of pocket money during his first few years of retirement. In November 1985, the Toronto Star reported that Ontario paid a “provincial executioner” $200 a month for a period of 8 years after the abolition of the death penalty, which, according to provincial auditor Douglas Archer, amounted to the tidy sum of $20,000.

Paul Soles, described in his Globe and Mail obit as “an actor, voice man, pioneering television broadcaster and twinkle-eyed adventurous soul with a hair-trigger wit,” died in Toronto on May 26, 2021. It is interesting to speculate whether Soles knew of this ironic turn of events in the life of Canada’s last executioner. And, if so, with his laser-sharp sense of humour, what he made of it.

WHAT TO DO WITH A DEATH TRAP

Thunder Bay District Jail

Photo by DAVID JACKSON/THE GLOBE AND MAIL

To figure out the future of the Thunder Bay District Jail, look to the past.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE GLOBE AND MAIL FEBRUARY 27, 2021

Dangerous, inhumane, unsanitary: just a sample of the litany of accusations levelled against the Thunder Bay District Jail in a blistering exposé published late last year in The Globe and Mail.

According to the report, the jail is critically understaffed and chronically overcrowded. Nine inmates have died since 2002, several from drug overdoses. An Indigenous man, Adam Capay, spent more than four years there in pretrial solitary detention. Inmate-on-inmate violence is rife. There was a riot and hostage-taking in 2015; 15 correctional officers refused to return. And more recently, an outbreak of COVID-19 has sent staff and provincial authorities scrambling.

 

A bleak fortress

The provincial jail, built in 1926, resembles resembles a bleak fortress, complete with turrets at the front entrance and the corners of the façade. If this building was designed to inspire terror, it has certainly succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest dreams, although not in the way originally intended. It has clearly failed both the guards and the guarded. Calls to close down the facility began in 1976 and have become increasingly insistent. Given the preponderance of Indigenous inmates among the jail’s population, some activists argue that a completely different option to incarceration would be appropriate.

The Ontario government, however, has other plans. The wheels move excruciatingly slowly, but eventually, perhaps by 2025, a new 325-bed facility will be built to replace both the antiquated jail and also the nearby Thunder Bay Correctional Centre. So that neo-Gothic house of horrors, riddled with mould and asbestos, will finally be shuttered.

 

And then what?

As has been the case with many obsolete correctional facilities in Ontario, the question will arise: What should be done with the structure once it has been shut down? Other grim relics of Ontario’s penal past have met with a variety of fates.

Despite vigorous protest, Kingston’s 118-year-old Frontenac County Jail, once the scene of judicial hangings of convicted murderers, was demolished in 1973. The site is now used as a parking lot. The Peel County Jail in Brampton, Ont., built in 1867 and closed in 1977, has been creatively incorporated into the Peel Art Gallery, Museum and Archives.

An interesting comparison is Toronto’s formidable Don Jail, which, in the late 1970s, was facing its own existential crisis.

 

The Don Jail

Located on the east side of the Don River, once remote from the city but now in the flourishing neighbourhood of Riverdale, this landmark was lauded as a “palace for prisoners” when it opened in 1864. The jail was based on progressive 19th-century penal reforms and state-of-the-art architectural principles.

However, it swiftly degenerated into what’s been called a “hell hole” where both inmates and staff were at risk of violence and death. Overcrowding became the norm. Other complaints over the years included unsanitary conditions, the intermingling of first offenders and seasoned criminals, corruption and mismanagement.

The end came in 1977, when then Ontario minister of correctional services, Frank Drea, told his fellow parliamentarians that he would “close the old Don Jail on Dec. 31, 1977 … forever.” The building would be replaced with a “massive” flower garden for the benefit of patients at the nearby Riverdale Hospital.

According to the media, Mr. Drea’s declaration was supported by all political parties. There were also calls from the public to “tear it down!” But many dissenting voices were raised. Historian Donald Jones, for example, wrote that “history cannot be blotted out by the destruction of buildings.” John Sewell, a former mayor of Toronto, credits a wildly successful poster campaign, urging Torontonians to “Take a closer look!” at the old Don Jail, with helping to save the building.

 

Heritage Preservation

With advocates of heritage preservation winning the day, what Mr. Drea referred to as that “magnificent monument to human misery” was not torn down. The jail mouldered away until the early 2000s, when an ambitious long-term project restructured the site at the corner of Gerrard Street East and Broadview Avenue. A slew of architects and heritage restorers collaborated to repurpose the Don as the administration centre for Bridgepoint Active Healthcare, which replaced the 1960s-era Riverdale Hospital.

The heritage restoration called for the retention of significant elements of the Don’s grim past: notably, bars on some windows, several original cells, and the execution chamber where 26 men were hanged between 1908 and 1962. The actual gallows, however, are long gone.

 

“A place of incarceration to a place of healing”

Marian Walsh, former president and chief executive of Bridgepoint Active Healthcare, was the driving force behind the project. She contends that the transformation of the site has changed “a place of incarceration into a place of healing,” thus returning the jail to its reformist roots.

But we should never forget what lies hidden behind the bright white walls and light-coloured floors of the spruced-up building. The writer of a letter to the media in December, 1977, maintained that “it doesn’t matter now whether it stands, as the hurt has been done.” Toronto had “a self-made curse – because there will always be the words: ‘Remember the Don!’”

 

“Remember the Don!”

The importance of remembering cannot be overstated. Without memory, progress is impossible. My studies of the Don, past and present, however, have convinced me that erasure and “healing” are not enough. We need some form of monument to remind us of how we’ve treated our society’s outcasts.

Reflection, respect, remembrance of lives lost or tragically damaged, the expertise of heritage and related groups, and public engagement: These are just a few of the factors that the province and the City of Thunder Bay would do well to consider when the time comes to decide what to do with their death trap.

 

THE DYING DAYS OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN CANADA

THE COP KILLER AND HIS LAWYER

 

A recent obituary in the Globe and Mail highlighted the many facets of the career of Clare Elvet Lewis, who died in Toronto on October 24, 2020, at the age of 83. One of the various (and earliest) hats he wore in the course of his professional life was that of defence lawyer. It was in this role that he met up with a small-time criminal named René Vaillancourt, who cruised into Toronto from his native Montreal in January 1973 to rob a bank.

 

After spending the night of January 31 at the Gladstone Hotel, Vaillancourt drove across town to his target of choice: a Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce branch at Danforth and Coxwell avenues in the east end. The 24-year-old was out on bail at the time on six charges, including possession of a dangerous weapon, car theft, and possession of stolen property. Reportedly, his specialty was stealing colour televisions from houses, stores and taverns in his home town. But he had become tired of the meagre pickings from his existing criminal activities. “I came to Toronto because the banks have more money in them,” he said later. “I was getting only $200 for B and Es [breaking and entering].” His optimistic assessment was spot on: using a .38 Smith & Wesson Special he had purloined from a policeman’s house in Montreal, he held up a teller at the CIBC branch and made off with almost $1800.

 

After dumping the 1965 Pontiac Parisienne he had stolen to use as a getaway car, Vaillancourt headed back to his own vehicle parked on nearby Drayton Avenue. There he encountered Leslie Maitland, a 35-year-old police officer who was in the area with trainee constable Brian McCullum investigating a robbery — probably the one Vaillancourt had just committed. “When I seen that he was coming for me I took out my gun…. I waved my gun at him…. He kept coming towards me. He wanted to catch me. I just shot and he fell down on the sidewalk,” Vaillancourt told police.

 

The bullet severed Maitland’s aorta and he was probably dead before he hit the ground. Vaillancourt shot him again, and followed this up by firing four times at McCullum, who, as a trainee, was unarmed. It was the young cop’s lucky day. He took shelter behind the police cruiser and all the bullets missed their target. But, as he grimly noted, “I could feel the spray of glass [from shattered car windows] on my face.”

 

Vaillancourt was captured while trying to escape in a taxi. “I killed the policeman,” he told investigating officers. “I want to get it over as fast as possible. I’ll plead guilty and draw my sentence. They will hang me for this but better that than being in jail all my life.” By the time his trial opened in September 1973, Vaillancourt had changed his mind. He pleaded not guilty.

 

Vaillancourt had clearly pulled the trigger and he had clearly killed Leslie Maitland. More than 20 witnesses were prepared to attest to that. However, the accused’s lawyer, Clare Lewis, tried to prove “that Vaillancourt’s rational mind had disintegrated and that he could not realize the nature of the act that he had committed.” Psychiatrists and psychologists called by the defence testified that Vaillancourt had suffered brain damage at birth. He was described as impulsive, easily distracted, sadistic as a child, and sexually deviant; all of which, those experts argued, pointed to a diagnosis of minimal brain dysfunction. The jury preferred the version of Dr. Joseph Marotta, a neurologist at Toronto’s St. Michael’s Hospital, who found no evidence of abnormality in a neurological assessment of the defendant. Vaillancourt was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death by hanging — which was, back then, the penalty for the slaying of a police officer in Canada.

 

After their brief meeting in the early 1970s, the lives of the criminal lawyer and the cop killer followed very different trajectories. Lewis went on to occupy a myriad of other roles on the right side of the law: notably, judge, police commissioner and creator of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) that investigates the police, and Ontario ombudsman. He was on the Ontario Review Board in 2010 when a debilitating stroke ended his public life.

 

Vaillancourt was sent to death row at Toronto’s notorious Don Jail to await execution. He was still there a full 692 days later when he learned that he would not hang on October 31, 1975. He had been granted a nine-month stay of execution by solicitor-general Warren Allmand, pending the introduction of a bill abolishing capital punishment in Canada. On July 14, 1976, Bill C-84 squeaked through Parliament by a margin of seven votes, effectively putting the kibosh on the death penalty in Canada.

 

Vaillancourt’s sentence was commuted to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. After his transfer to a federal penitentiary, Vaillancourt developed a new set of skills: he became a drug trafficker and ran an illicit mail-order business, abetted by his bewildered mother. He traded his own drug dependence for an addiction to computers. But his greatest claim to fame must surely be that he was the last convicted murderer ever to await execution on death row in the Don Jail.

Drop Dead: The Puzzle

“Puzzles flying off the shelves as COVID-19 keeps people at home,” announced CTV News.

And a jigsaw puzzle maker joked: “It’s almost like it’s the next toilet paper.”

Have you been bitten by the jigsaw bug, and can’t wait to start your next one? The good news is that you won’t have to wait as long for it as you would for your next toilet paper order. Help is on hand.

Here is our “Drop Dead: The Cover” puzzle.

 

If you need a preview, click the “picture” image.

If you need a guide, click the “ghost”.

 

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

 

Have you been dying for a new story from Lorna Poplak?  Well, here it is!

“Off With His Head” is the true crime tale of German serial killer Eugen Weidmann, the last person to be publicly executed in ‘La Belle’ France, eighty years ago.

Recorded for a “Murder Was The Case” podcast, the radio play features Lorna Poplak, Lee Mellor, Nate Hendley, and Jacqueline Rendell.

 


 

 

Off With His Head

Written by: Lorna Poplak
Produced by: Lee Mellor

 

Read an excerpt:

Lorna: Summer 1939. As the clouds of war roiled over Europe, its citizens shimmied and jitterbugged and made whoopee. Life Magazine called it the most brilliant social season since 1914. People danced to “Deep Purple” in London, flocked to midnight concerts in Stockholm, and ogled “undressed” Czech refugee girls in Warsaw nightclubs. In the early morning of June 17, a crowd gathered outside the green door of St. Pierre Prison in the French city of Versailles to watch a different type of show, growing increasingly impatient when the performance was delayed — they “whistled and stamped and jeered like an ill-behaved movie audience.” As Life put it:

Newscaster voice: “Hundreds of Frenchmen and women had come fresh from late-closing cafes of Montmartre and Montparnasse to experience the exquisite excitement of seeing a man have his head cut off.”

Lorna: The man of the moment was thirty-one-year-old German serial murderer Eugen (Eugène to the French) Weidmann, who looked pale and haggard as he was hustled out by prison officials to the guillotine rigged up on the sidewalk.

By 4:30, as dawn lit up the now-silent spectators, it was all over…..

 

JULY 14, 1976: A MOMENTOUS DAY FOR CANADA

The federal Liberals swept the Conservative government out of office in 1963. The Liberals were resolutely opposed to capital punishment, and made their position clear in December 1967, when parliament voted to suspend the death penalty for civilian crimes for a period of 5 years. In 1973, this moratorium was extended by another 5 years. Two years before this period was to expire, a formal vote was taken in the House of Commons that answered this burning question: Should Canada retain or abolish the death penalty?

The vote could have gone either way.

Public opinion firmly favoured the death penalty, and this was backed by powerful organizations such as the Public Service Alliance of Canada. But politicians on both sides of the spectrum were against capital punishment. In the buildup to the vote, John Diefenbaker, Conservative prime minister of Canada until 1963, said of the death penalty: “It’s too dangerous, and innocent men can be executed and have been executed.” One week before the vote then Liberal prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau weighed in with an ardent speech in the House of Commons: “My concern is for the society which adopts vengeance as an acceptable motive for its collective behaviour. If we make that choice, we will snuff out some of the boundless hope and confidence in ourselves and other people, which has marked our maturing as a free people.”

But the individual most closely associated with Bill C-84 was the man who tabled it in parliament in 1976, federal solicitor general and human rights activist Warren Allmand. Like Trudeau, he was a passionate abolitionist. “I don’t think Canadians are bloodthirsty people,” Allmand told the CBC in 1975. “I know a lot of them don’t agree with me now. But I think I could convince [them] that capital punishment is a bad thing.”

Allmand’s will prevailed. In a free vote on July 14, 1974, Bill C-84 squeaked through the House of Commons with 131 parliamentarians voting for and 124 against abolishing the death sentence for all civilian crimes in Canada. It was replaced by life imprisonment with no chance of parole for 25 years.

A motion to restore the death penalty was introduced in the House of Commons in June 1987. It was convincingly defeated. And in 1998 Canada achieved full abolitionist status when all references to the death sentence were stripped from the National Defence Act.

INNOCENCE LOST: THE STEVEN TRUSCOTT CASE STILL RESONATES

It is a nightmarish scenario: a 12-year-old schoolgirl disappears. Her body is found 2 days later. She has been raped and murdered.  The young man accused of her rape and murder is just 14 years old. He is found guilty and sentenced to death.

This, stripped-down, is the plot of a play now being performed by Soulpepper Theatre in Toronto. Entitled Innocence Lost: A Play About Steven Truscott, it is based on fact, not fiction. It recreates the drama and anguish of the real-life case of Steven Murray Truscott, which began at an air base in Clinton, Ontario, on a steamy evening in June 1959. Steven gave his classmate, Lynne Harper, a ride on his bike over a bridge to the highway just outside town.

After returning to the bridge to join a group of friends, Steven glanced back and noticed Lynne climbing into a car. The police didn’t believe him. They claimed, as did the crown prosecutor at his trial, that Steven had taken Lynne into a wooded area located on the way to the highway, where he killed her.  Medical evidence was heavily weighted against the boy, and several of his schoolmates testified against him. The judge and jury didn’t believe him either, and he was found guilty. And because he was tried as an adult, there was only one possible sentence available in Canada at that time: death by hanging.

Innocence Lost, Soulpepper

Innocence Lost is part interaction between the various players, who juggle multiple roles, and part information conveyed directly to the audience. There is one fictional role — that of Sarah, whom playwright Beverley Cooper describes as being loosely based on a friend of Steven Truscott’s. This device, says Cooper, “freed things up” for her, allowing her to channel a variety of opinions through this fictional individual while sticking close to the (well-researched) truth with respect to the words and actions of the non-fictional characters.

Well worth waiting for in Act 2 is Nancy Palk’s portrayal of the passionate and persistent investigative journalist Isabel Lebourdais. Lebourdais’s 1966 book, The Trial of Steven Truscott, was a searing denunciation of Truscott’s trial and guilty verdict.

“Who killed Lynne Harper?” Lebourdais asks in the final chapter of her book. Different theories have been advanced over the years: a convicted pedophile based in Clinton at the time of Lynne’s death; an airman stationed in Clinton prior to 1959 with a “weakness for alcohol and little girls”; a travelling salesman; a convicted rapist who worked as an electrician at the base. But the trail is stone cold, and the question will probably never be answered.

As for Steven Truscott, his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. In 1969, after 10 years in prison, he was eligible for parole and gained his release. It took another 38 years, however, for the Ontario Court of Appeal to acquit Steven of the murder, meaning that his guilt could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court had earlier declared that his conviction was a miscarriage of justice that “must be quashed.”

Nearly 60 years on, the Steven Truscott case still stands out as a chilling study of wrongful conviction and miscarriage of justice. Innocence Lost is a timely reminder that some things should never be forgotten.

PART 2: PARSING OUT THE PUZZLE

Thomas D’Arcy McGee, the Victim

McGee.png

At the time of Confederation, Thomas D’Arcy McGee was a Very Important Person in Canada. He was a poet, a journalist, an inspired and charismatic public speaker, a Father of Confederation, and a member of parliament. After starting out violently opposed to British rule in his native Ireland, McGee immigrated to Canada and became politically involved in the peaceable move toward union. However, he antagonized the Fenian Brotherhood, an Irish secret society and separatist movement that wanted to strike at Britain by invading Canada. McGee was denounced as a traitor to Ireland. He also started receiving death threats. Perhaps he shouldn’t have just laughed them off…

 

 

The Scene of the Crime, Toronto House, Ottawa

Toronto house.png

In the early hours of April 7, 1868, after a rousing speech in the House of Commons, McGee walked back to his lodgings in Ottawa. He had been renting a room in Toronto House at 71 Sparks Street, a.k.a. “Mrs. Trotter’s boarding house.” On arrival, he was cut down by an assassin’s bullet. His landlady, who was still awake inside, became aware of scuffling sounds. When she opened the front door to investigate, she heard a sharp crack. She found McGee slumped dead on the threshold, shot from behind at such close range that some of his teeth were found embedded in the doorpost. In this photograph of Toronto House, taken in 1868, an unidentified woman stands with a basket in her hand. Who was she? Possibly Mary Ann Trotter, whose establishment hit the headlines as the scene of the assassination of a high-profile Canadian federal politician.

 

The Reward

Flags flew at half mast as the shocked nation went into mourning. Henry James Friel, mayor of the city of Ottawa, posted a reward of $2,000 “for the apprehension and prosecution to conviction of the assassin,” and the federal government and provinces of Ontario and Quebec together offered an additional $10,000 in reward money. This was an enormous sum of money. It’s impossible to calculate exactly, as Canada only started tracking inflation in 1914, but $12,000 in 1868 would be equivalent in purchasing power to well over $250,000 today.

 

 

Patrick James Whelan, the Assassin

Patrick Whelan.png

Immediately following McGee’s death, a massive manhunt was launched and hundreds were arrested. Caught up in the police net was Patrick James Whelan, an Irish immigrant with strong Fenian connections. He’d been present during McGee’s speech in the House of Commons, and a gun was found in his pocket. With motive, opportunity and possession of a weapon all counting against him, he was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death by hanging. Whelan swore that he was innocent. “I am here standing on the brink of my grave,” he told the court, “and I wish to declare to you and to my God that I never committed this deed, and that, I know in my heart and soul.” Whelan’s lawyers launched two appeals against his sentence. Both failed, and in February 1869, Whelan met his end in a blinding snowstorm at the Carleton County Gaol in Ottawa.

 

The Murder Weapon

When he was arrested, Whelan was carrying a fully loaded .32 caliber Smith & Wesson tip up revolver, which had recently been fired. Although some say that there was only a weak circumstantial link between the gun and the crime, it became a crucial piece of evidence at Whelan’s trial and contributed to his death sentence. The firearm eventually found its way into the possession of Scott Renwick, an auto mechanic from Dundalk, Ontario. New and improved ballistic tests in 1973 at the Ontario Centre of Forensic Sciences showed that a bullet fired from the gun was very similar to the fatal McGee bullet. Although this did not prove conclusively that Whelan shot McGee, it did indicate that his gun might have been the lethal weapon. The Canadian Museum of Civilization (now the Canadian Museum of History) certainly regarded the revolver as “an icon of Canadian history.” In 2005, they bought it at auction for the sum of $105,000.

 

McGee’s Funeral

On Easter Monday, 1868, McGee was given a state funeral — Canada’s first — on what would have been his 43rd birthday. More than 80,000 people, many of them perched on rooftops or dangling from windows, watched in silence as the funeral procession wound its way through the streets of Montreal. The funeral carriage was sixteen foot high and sixteen foot long. It was drawn by six grey horses with black ostrich plumes tossing on their heads. Solemn military bands all along the route played Handel’s “Dead March.” McGee’s body was laid to rest in his family mausoleum at the Notre-Dame-des-Neiges Cemetery in Montreal.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee remains the only Canadian federal politician ever to have been assassinated.

ARTHUR ELLIS SHORTLIST EVENT

What a thrill to be invited to speak at the Crime Writers Canada’s Arthur Ellis shortlist event at Indigo Yonge & Eglinton on Wednesday evening, April 18!

Hope you can join me.

BLACK HISTORY AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: TWO CASE STUDIES (PART 1)

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been rereading The African Canadian Legal Odyssey: Historical Essays, edited by Barrington Walker.

Two of the essays resonate strongly with me; they link both to Black History Month and to my ongoing interest in the history of capital punishment in Canada.

Both essays illustrate the conflicted attitude toward Black people within the Canadian criminal justice system during the 20th century.

In “Creating the Myth of ‘Raceless’ Justice in the Murder Trial of R. v. Richardson, Sandwich, 1903,” Susan McKelvey, now a doctor of law and practicing lawyer, analyzes the case of Oliver Richardson, accused of murdering his neighbour and fellow-farmer Edmund Matthews in Essex County, Ontario.

Historically, notes McKelvey, we Canadians have prided ourselves for embracing the idea of “British justice,” which distinguishes our country from the more overtly racist Americans. Slavery officially ended in Canada in 1833, and Canadians abhorred vigilante justice as practiced by our southern neighbours. However, “stereotypes deeply entrenched within society depicted Black people as innately inferior to whites.” Discrimination and inequality spilled over into the criminal justice system, too.

The murder of Edmund Matthews was the culmination of a long-standing family feud, but McKelvey points out that the real significance here is that for the first time in Ontario a white man stood trial for killing a Black man.

Black people had started settling in Essex County in the early 1800s and by 1903 there was a sizeable population in the area. Generally, relations between whites and Blacks were positive, and the Matthews family was particularly well regarded by the white community. Not by Oliver Richardson, though, who claimed that Edmund Matthews had cheated him out of a strip of land, part of a parcel he had bought from a third party. Richardson, regarded as a ne’er-do-well, was constantly fighting with people in the area; Matthews’s only arguments were with his quarrelsome and litigious neighbour.

Things came to a head on July 10, 1903, when a mare and a colt escaped from the Matthews’ enclosure and the colt strayed onto Richardson’s property. Matthews did not retrieve the animal quickly enough; Richardson stormed onto his farm, and, in full view of both their families, pulled out his revolver and shot Matthews four times. Mattthews died the following day. Richardson faced a murder charge for “shooting and wounding with intent to kill.” And a murder conviction, it must be remembered, carried with it the sentence of death by hanging.

Richardson’s trial took place in September 1903. In his opening address, the presiding judge, as reported in the Amherstburg Echo, was “proud to say we are on Canadian soil where the life of the colored [sic] man is as much revered … as that of any other of our subjects.” The Crown attorney concurred. “Our colored citizens must get justice, and I am pleased to say that there are no burnings at the stake in our Dominion as in countries not far away.” As McKelvey dryly comments, “in a supposedly raceless system, there was nevertheless much emphasis placed on the race of the victim.”

Did this underlying racism play out in the eventual decision in the case? When it came to the witnesses, it became a case of “he said, she said,” or, more correctly, “they said, they said.” The Matthews family claimed that Richardson was the aggressor; the Richardson family, in spite of contradicting themselves and being “badly rattled” under cross-examination, insisted that Richardson had only opened fire after Matthews started throwing stones at him. Richardson’s lawyer insinuated that his client was forced to defend himself with a weapon because Matthews, as a Black man, was possessed of much greater strength. This in spite of the fact that Richardson, “a big burly fellow,” was some fifteen years younger than his killer. The Crown attorney reminded the court that Richardson was trespassing when he shot Matthews. And why was he carrying around a deadly weapon, unless he meant to use it?

After deliberating for an hour, the jury came back with a verdict of manslaughter, and the judge immediately sentenced Richardson to fifteen years in the Kingston Penitentiary. Whites in the community were satisfied with the result; Blacks expressed their disappointment in no uncertain terms. If Matthews had been white, they said, the verdict would have been murder.

McKelvey’s conclusion: “In one sense it seems fairly evident that a genuine effort was made to achieve justice for Edmund Matthews. But while those who were prosecuting Oliver Richardson believed that they were demonstrating the ‘racelessness’ of the Canadian justice system, a more careful contextual analysis reveals that the trial merely hid the more deeply entrenched racism and prejudices within society.”

Next week, in Part 2 of this mini-series, I’ll take a look at David Steeves’s analysis of the case of Daniel Perry Sampson, a Black man executed in 1935 for the murder of two young white brothers in Halifax, Nova Scotia. In a postscript to this case, Sampson received an unexpected mark of respect in December 2017.

LinkedIn
LinkedIn
Share
Back to Top