# data[].attributes.body
"The only real scary part of it all was when the cell door slammed behind you. Because everything before it well I didn't do it ill be found not guilty"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Thomas Sophonow was wrongfully convicted in the death of 16-year-old Barbara Stoppel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earlier this month, Innocence Canada held events to mark Wrongful Conviction Day - in an effort to raise awareness about the issue. The CBC's Alana Cole spoke with Thomas Sophonow to see what life is like for him now, and what he'd like to see happen to keep others from suffering the way he did.

# data[].attributes.body
Barbara Stoppel was murdered in a donut shop, Thomas Sophonow was wrongfully convicted of her murder

# data[].attributes.body
In an attempt to force a confession out of Thomas Sophonow tactics that would be illegal in today's laws were used. Sophonow was aggressively interrogated by police and told him that his fingerprints had been found in the donut store and that five witnesses had already identified him.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thomas Sophonow stands alone among the ranks of the wrongly convicted in Canada for having been tried three times for the same crime, before finally being exonerated.

Barbara Stoppel Murder

The investigation and prosecution of the murder that Sophonow was alleged to have committed exposed problems seen time and again in miscarriages of justice: lazy police work and an unswerving determination by authorities to obtain a conviction, even if it meant bending the rules.

Sophonow, a 29-year-old machine operator, was charged in the murder of 16-year-old Barbara Stoppel, a counter server at Ideal Donut Shop in St. Boniface, Manitoba. She was strangled in the women's washroom of the store on 23 December 1981. Found close to death, she lingered for six days on life support before succumbing to her injuries.

Several eyewitnesses promptly came forward after the high-profile crime, claiming to have seen a lone man in a cowboy hat hanging around the donut store, later locking the store door from the inside shortly before the murder.

Witnesses ultimately identified Sophonow based on photo lineups that, many years later, would be revealed as having been badly flawed and conducted in a biased fashion.

One eyewitness who would loom particularly large in the prosecution, John Doerksen, told police that he had noticed a man on a bridge that night throwing something into a river. The object was recovered and turned out to be a length of twine used to strangle Stoppel.

Pathology lab experts determined that the twine had originated with one of two possible manufacturers: one in Portage la Prairie, near Winnipeg, Manitoba, and the other in Washington state, just outside Vancouver, British Columbia. The Washington company identified the rope as having come from its factory. It would become prime evidence against Sophonow, who lived in Vancouver but had been visiting Winnipeg at the time of the murder.

Interrogation and Confession

In conditions that would be illegal under today's laws, Sophonow was aggressively interrogated by police. He was not informed of his right to counsel and was strip-searched. In another effort to force a confession from Sophonow, police informed him that his fingerprints had been found in the donut store and that five witnesses had already identified him.

Sophonow eventually became persuaded that he had killed Stoppel and had blacked out afterward, remembering little of the crime. He confessed this to police. However, only 15 minutes of transcribed notes were produced from his interrogation and confession.

On 12 March 1982, police announced they had found and arrested the man who had become known as the "Cowboy Killer."

Additional evidence against Sophonow turned up while he was in prison awaiting his trial. Three jailhouse informants told police they had heard him confess to the murder.

Three Trials

Sophonow's defence was based largely on an alibi. He claimed that he had arrived from Vancouver late on the night of 22-23 December in hopes of visiting his two-year-old daughter - who was in the custody of his ex-wife. Denied permission to see her, Sophonow said he had gone to a Canadian Tire to get his car brakes fixed. While waiting for the work to be completed, he had purchased some Christmas stockings and toys to be distributed to children at a nearby hospital.

His first trial ended on 6 November 1982 when the jury concluded that it could not reach a unanimous verdict.

Sophonow's second trial concluded on 17 March 1983 with a conviction. The Manitoba Court of Appeal later overturned the verdict and ordered a new trial because the theory of the defence had not been properly given to the jury by the trial judge. This decision was affirmed about nine months later by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Sophonow's third trial began on 4 February 1985. Again, he was convicted of second-degree murder. The Manitoba Court of Appeal not only reversed the conviction based, again, on errors made by the trial judge, but it ruled that Sophonow could not be tried a fourth time. He was formally acquitted on 12 December 1985. The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately refused to hear a Crown appeal of the decision, ending the prosecution once and for all.

Police Bungling

As controversy grew about whether police had bungled the investigation, three reviews of the case were conducted, including an internal Winnipeg Police inquiry by Constable John Burchill . The results of the reviews were not made public. However, Winnipeg Police Chief Jack Ewatski conceded in 2000 that the investigation had been botched.

Having spent a total of four years behind bars, and having lived most of his adult life under the shadow of an ongoing murder prosecution, Sophonow was exonerated and received a full apology from the Manitoba government.

The provincial government appointed Peter Cory, a former Supreme Court of Canada judge, to preside over a commission of inquiry into the miscarriage of justice. Cory fought several battles with authorities to obtain evidence he deemed important, including the results of the Burchill report.

Inquiry

Sophonow participated in the inquiry but revealed himself as a deeply troubled man. On several occasions, he emitted angry outbursts at his own lawyers or the legal system as a whole. He fired several of his counsel and, at one point, Sophonow advised lawyers not to take instructions from him because he would be "a hindrance."

Testifying at the inquiry, Sophonow spoke candidly about how being imprisoned and ostracized by his community had left him irremediably broken. Often near tears, he described being kept in segregation for periods of his incarceration at one of the most brutal penitentiaries in the country. Sophonow said he suffered from a litany of stress-related medical problems. He also recounted that his house was firebombed, and that his daughter once happened to see some old television news footage of the crime and asked him: "Daddy, are you a murderer?"

In his 2001 report, Justice Cory described the Sophonow case as a flagrant instance of tunnel vision where other viable suspects were ignored, as the police relentlessly built a case around the man they had become convinced was the murderer. As an illustration of this, he cited the suppression of evidence from a BC Hydro employee who had concluded that the twine used to strangle Stoppel was produced by the Manitoba company, rather than the factory located in Washington. Cory observed that, had police wanted to test the twine properly at the outset of the case, it would have cost just $100 to do so.

Cory was sharply critical of "startlingly unfair" police procedures, which included the use of a hypnotist to enhance Mr. Doerksen's memory, and an "unconscionable" strip search of Sophonow as part of his interrogation. He said police photo lineup procedures were conducted in such a way as to produce the results officers were seeking. Police actively prodded eyewitnesses toward reaching the conclusions they hoped for, or arranged photos in such a way that he was likely to be singled out, Cory said.

Finally, his report condemned the use of jailhouse informants, including one who had 26 fraud charges later dropped in recognition of his testimony against Sophonow.

"The psychological scarring that (Sophonow) has suffered is just as grave and just as permanent as would be the loss of a limb," Cory concluded. He recommended that Sophonow receive $2.6 million in compensation payments; half of that paid by the City of Winnipeg, 40 per cent by the province; and the remainder from the federal government.

Aftermath

The Stoppel murder case may never be solved, if only because a leading suspect in the re-investigation, Terry Arnold, has died.

Sophonow lives in New Westminster, BC, with his second wife and their three children. Diagnosed as suffering from a case of post-traumatic stress syndrome that may never be alleviated, Sophonow decided against returning to full-time employment and has lived largely off his compensation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thomas Sophonow stands alone among the ranks of the wrongly convicted in Canada for having been tried three times for the same crime, before finally being exonerated. The investigation and prosecution of the murder that Sophonow was alleged to have committed exposed problems seen time and again in miscarriages of justice: lazy police work and an unswerving determination by authorities to obtain a conviction, even if it meant bending the rules.

# data[].attributes.body
Despite having an ironcald alibi, Thomas Sophonow was still wrongfully convicted

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Author: Sarah Harland-Logan

Introduction

Barbara Stoppel was only 16 years old when she was brutally strangled to death at her workplace. On December 23, 1981, she was found close to death in the women's washroom at the Ideal Donut Shop in Winnipeg, Manitoba. A few days later, she passed away at a local hospital. Her killer was never brought to justice.[1]

As would be brought to light many years later, Thomas Sophonow had an ironclad alibi: he could not have committed this crime. Thomas had arrived in Winnipeg from Vancouver sometime during the night of December 22- 23, hoping to visit his two-year-old daughter. When he was not able to reach an agreement with his ex-wife, he left a gift for his daughter with family and took care of some other tasks. Specifically, he arranged for his car's brakes to be repaired at the Canadian Tire and, while waiting, he went to a nearby Safeway to buy Christmas stockings with candies and toys inside. Later that evening, he distributed the stockings to the children's wards of local hospitals. In the interim, he called his mother.[2]

It is a deeply sad irony that these were Thomas' actions during the time period when he was for many years believed to have committed a reprehensible murder. A number of eyewitnesses had observed a man who looked something like Thomas sitting in the donut shop and, later, locking the door and retreating toward the back of the store, presumably preparing to kill Barbara. These eyewitnesses incorrectly picked Thomas out of photo and in-person line-ups. Police interviewed Thomas twice; unfortunately, the officers did not record the interviews or take verbatim notes, making it difficult to determine exactly what happened. However, what we do know is that during his second interview, Thomas was subjected to very aggressive and traumatizing interview techniques that would not be acceptable today under any circumstances. Most notably, he underwent a strip search and a search of his anal cavity, despite there being no reason to think that this highly invasive search was necessary or appropriate. This interrogation was very traumatizing, so much so that even he became convinced that he had murdered Barbara, despite the fact he could not possibly have done so.[3]

False Incriminating Evidence

After this alarming interview, Thomas was arrested and transported to the lock-up. An undercover police constable was placed near him in the facility, in the hopes that Thomas would confess to the officer. Thomas made no such confession, but he did demonstrate the officer how the door of the donut shop was locked from the inside before Barbara was murdered. Since we now know that Thomas had an alibi and could not possibly have committed this murder, the only conclusion we can draw is that the police themselves showed Thomas the door-locking technique when they were interviewing him.[4]

In addition to Thomas' demonstration of the door-locking technique, and the witnesses' mistaken belief that he was the suspicious man they had observed at the donut shop where Barbara was murdered, there was one piece of physical evidence that supposedly linked Thomas to the killing. One of the witnesses, Mr. Doerksen, had observed the killer running away from the crime scene. Mr. Doerksen saw the killer throw something into the river while running over a bridge. Police later retrieved a piece of twine from this location which had fibres imbedded in it that had come from Barbara's sweater. When the police investigated the source of this twine - which had been used to strangle Barbara - they found that it could have come from one of two companies, Powers Twines or Berkley. They asked officials from each company whether the twine had come from them. The Powers Twines officials visually inspected the twine and concluded that it was theirs, while Berkeley officials concluded that the twine had not come from their company. Importantly, Berkeley added a tracer element to all of their twine, and a $100 test could have been performed to find out whether or not the twine contained this distinctive tracer. Inexplicably, this test was not carried out.[5]

This failure turned out to be enormously important, as Berkeley manufactured their twine in Portage la Prairie (near Winnipeg), whereas Powers Twines' plant was in Washington, and easily accessible at various British Columbia construction sites. Since the police believed that the twine in question came from Powers Twines, and they knew that Thomas was living in Vancouver, they concluded that Thomas was the person who had used the twine to kill Barbara. We now know that a simple, inexpensive test could have revealed the truth; that the twine was actually from Berkeley's Portage la Prairie plant - a fact that might have saved Thomas decades of living with the stigma of being a murderer.[6]

Thomas' Trials and Appeals

Thomas was put on trial three times for a crime that he did not commit. His first trial began on October 18th, 1982. The police and prosecutors believed that they possessed a great deal of evidence demonstrating that Thomas was the killer: the eyewitness identifications; Thomas' door-locking demonstration; and the suspicious twine that Thomas was thought to have brought with him from British Columbia. In addition, the jury heard damning evidence from three different jailhouse informants who claimed that Thomas had confessed to killing Barbara while he was incarcerated. However, the eyewitnesses also testified that they had seen Barbara talking to the killer for a few minutes, and following him toward the back of the store; and there was no evidence at all to suggest that Barbara and Thomas knew each other. There was also no physical evidence besides the wrongly identified twine to connect Thomas to the murder. At the end of Thomas' first trial, the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict so, on November 6, 1982, a mistrial was declared. Thomas would have to go through the trial process a second time.[7]

Thomas' second trial began on February 21,1983, and this time the jury took a different view. Thomas was convicted of Barbara's murder on March 17. He appealed his conviction to the Manitoba Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial judge had not presented his position to the jury in an adequate and fair manner. The Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge had failed to fulfill his obligation to present the defence's theory of the case to the jury, fully and without bias. Therefore Thomas had not received a fair trial. As a result, the Court of Appeal overturned Thomas' conviction and ordered that a third trial be held instead.[8]

Thomas' third and final trial began on February 4, 1985. Again, the jury found Thomas guilty. Thomas again appealed and argued that as at his second trial, the third trial judge had not presented his theory of the case to the jury in a full and fair manner. Again, the Manitoba Court of Appeal agreed: on December 12, 1985, the Court found that Thomas' third trial had been unfair as well. This time, however, the Court concluded that since he had already gone through three trials and spent 45 months - almost four years - in custody, justice would be best served by acquitting Thomas rather than subjecting him to another trial. On December 12, 1985, Thomas was acquitted.[9]

A Miscarriage of Justice

Although Thomas was now free from prison and the threat of further criminal prosecutions, he knew that many people believed that he had killed Barbara. In fact, he received messages with the words "we know who are you" and "murderer." What's more, Thomas' house was firebombed on one occasion. Thankfully, he and his family were able to escape, but the attack could have been fatal. Given these circumstances, it is unsurprising that Thomas devoted a great deal of his time and energy attempting to secure an official exoneration.[10]

Thomas' many years of effort paid off on June 8, 2000, when the Winnipeg Police Service announced that Thomas was not responsible for Barbara's murder. The Attorney General of Manitoba apologized to Thomas for the "three trials and two appeals, and ... 45 months in jail" that he had had to endure "for an offence he did not commit." A Commission of Inquiry, headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Peter Cory, was formed to determined what had caused Thomas' wrongful conviction, and how these problems could be avoided in future cases. Innocence Canada (formerly AIDWYC) participated extensively throughout the Inquiry's hearings. In particular, Innocence Canada focused on the issue of eyewitness evidence and its many failings, and fought to ensure that Thomas would receive the compensation that he so richly deserved.[11]

The Sophonow Inquiry report was released on November 5, 2001. This report identified an incredible array of errors and other problems that led to Thomas' wrongful conviction. The chief causes of this miscarriage of justice are set out below. Unlike many wrongly convicted people, Thomas received $2.3 million in compensation for the miscarriage of justice and the resulting trauma that he suffered, and the years of his life that he lost.[12]

Causes of Thomas' Wrongful Conviction: Tunnel Vision

The Inquiry into Thomas' wrongful conviction determined that the police succumbed to tunnel vision at an early stage of the investigation into Barbara's murder, causing them to "focus ... on Thomas Sophonow as the killer to the exclusion of all others and fail ... to accept any evidence or explanation that was contrary to their theory." As a result, Thomas was wrongly convicted, while the real killer has never been brought to justice.[16]

Causes of Thomas' Wrongful Conviction: Unreliable Eyewitness Evidence

Although eyewitness testimony is commonly accepted as reliable, it has in fact played a role in many wrongful convictions (see, for example, the cases of Innocence Canada clients Robert Baltovich, Anthony Hanemaayer and Romeo Phillion). Witnesses make incorrect identifications at an alarmingly high rate. In fact, of the Innocence Project's first 225 exonerations of people who were wrongly convicted in the US, "77% of the convictions had been based on mistaken eyewitness identification."[17] Dr. Elizabeth Loftus - the expert called in the Inquiry to explain the science behind these mistaken identifications - "emphasized that faulty eyewitness identification is by far the single most important cause of wrongful convictions." One of the reasons for the fact is that "there is a very weak relationship between the confidence level of a witness and the accuracy of that witness": in other words, confident witnesses are no more likely to make a correct identification than uncertain witnesses. This lack of correlation between confidence and accuracy is especially unfortunate given that jurors "tend to find confident witnesses more believable."[18]

In addition to these general frailties of eyewitness testimony, the police investigating Barbara's murder used problematic techniques in their attempt to elicit evidence from the witnesses. The Crown's most important witness was John Doerksen, the man who ran after the murderer and attempted to confront him. The first of many problems with Mr. Doerksen's eyewitness testimony is that at some point during the investigation, he underwent a session with a hypnotist, during which he gave a somewhat different description of the murderer from the version that he had given previously.[19] As the Supreme Court observed in the case R v Trochym [2007] 1 SCR 239, hypnosis increases the extent to which our memories can change due to outside influences, so that we end up remembering things that never happened. Hypnosis therefore greatly exacerbates the general dangers of eyewitness testimony, which are rooted in this same fallibility of human memory. The Supreme Court made it clear in this case that hypnosis is a dangerous technique for enhancing memory that has no place in a criminal prosecution. [20]

Moreover, when Mr. Doerksen first attended a line-up that included Thomas, he did not identify anyone - including Thomas - as the killer whom he had pursued. Two days later, however, Mr. Doerksen coincidentally saw Thomas while they were both in the Public Safety Building. By that time, Mr. Doerksen had read a newspaper that contained Thomas' picture. He came to believe that Thomas actually was the person he had seen fleeing the donut shop, even though his appearance was essentially the same as it had been during the line-up. At the Inquiry, Dr. Loftus explained that as time passes, people not only forget information - they also become more susceptible to forming false recollections as a result of new information that they learned after the event. Furthermore, we now know that in 1982, Mr. Doerksen was not able to see well at night or in poor lighting conditions.[21]

Furthermore, two of the Crown's witnesses identified Thomas after being shown a photo line-up in which his picture stood out dramatically from the others. As Justice Cory put it in the Inquiry report, "The differences in Thomas Sophonow's pictures are such that it might just as well have carried a notation saying, 'here I am.'" As a result, this photo line-up was "startlingly unfair." And finally, two of the witnesses who testified at trial that Thomas was the killer had not in fact been able to identify him during the live line-up that they observed. Rather, both witnesses merely thought that he was the best match as compared to the other people in the line-up. The officer conducting one of these line-ups made the situation worse by informing the witness that he had indeed picked out the current suspect, thereby strengthening his confidence in his incorrect identification. Given this incredible range of problems with the eyewitness testimony used to convict Thomas on two occasions, it is perhaps not surprising that a miscarriage of justice occurred.[22]

Causes of Thomas' Wrongful Conviction: Jailhouse Informants

Another cause of this miscarriage of justice was the false testimony of three jailhouse informants who claimed that Thomas had confessed to them that he had murdered Barbara. However, each of these people lied on the stand. Shockingly, one of the informants - Mr. McQuade - testified under duress: two police officers had told him that if he did not testify voluntarily against Thomas, then he would be treated as a hostile witness, and the Crown would expose him as a police informant. Since this revelation could easily have led to Mr. McQuade's death, he chose to testify, fearing for his life. Another informant, Mr. Cheng, was facing 26 counts of fraud at the time. He testified in hopes of getting out of jail and having the charges against him dropped - which, indeed, they were. Finally, the Sophonow Inquiry report described the third informant, Mr. Martin, as "a prime example of the convincing mendacity of jailhouse informants. He seems to have heard more confessions than many dedicated priests." In fact, "no less than 11 jailhouse informants had volunteered their services" to police in Thomas' case, meaning that 11 separate people were eager to give false testimony against an innocent man.[23]

Jailhouse informants have contributed to many wrongful convictions: according to statistics compiled by the Innocence Project at the Cardozo Law School in New York:

In more than 15% of wrongful conviction cases overturned through DNA testing, an informant testified against the defendant at the original trial. Often, statements from people with incentives to testify - particularly incentives that are not disclosed to the jury - are the central evidence in convicting an innocent person.[24]

The Sophonow Inquiry report concluded that jailhouse informants should generally be prohibited from testifying in court, since their testimony is notoriously unreliable. (This report followed in the footsteps of the Morin Inquiry report, which also warned against the use of jailhouse informants).[25]

Today, Crown Prosecutors are required to view jailhouse informers' purported evidence in a much more skeptical and vigilant light. For example, the Ontario Crown Policy Manual states that jailhouse informants' evidence "requires a rigorous, objective assessment of the informer's account of the accused person's alleged statement, the circumstances in which that account was provided to the authorities and the in-custody informer's general reliability." The Manual notes that "a principal purpose of this policy is to help prevent miscarriages of justice, which can occur when in-custody informers falsely implicate accused persons" - as did the three jailhouse informants in Thomas' case. [26]

Causes of Thomas' Wrongful Conviction: Lack of Disclosure

A number of the problems discussed above could have been dealt with effectively during Thomas' trials - if Thomas and his lawyers had known that they existed. However, the Crown failed to disclose an astonishing array of information to the defence that could have prevented this miscarriage of justice. For example, Thomas' lawyers never learned that the $100 test to determine the origin of the twine that was used to strangle Barbara had actually never been performed - and thus, the defence team did not know to take the steps that would have shown them that the police identification of the twine was wrong. Similarly, Thomas' lawyers never received important information about the jailhouse informants and their motives for testifying that would have cast grave doubt on their reliability. They were also kept in the dark about various problems with the key eyewitness' evidence.[27]

The Supreme Court made it clear in the 1991 case R v Stinchcombe [1991] 3 SCR 326 that the Crown must disclose any and all potentially relevant documents to the defence (except for a few types of privileged materials). However, as noted by one of the judges in James Driskell's case - another Innocence Canada case - the basic obligation "to disclose all material evidence," such as the many indicators of the Crown witnesses' unreliability, "existed long before Stinchcombe."[28] The Crown failed in this obligation, and it failed Thomas.

Other Causes of Thomas' Wrongful Conviction

The coercive and traumatizing police practices used in Thomas' second interview likely led him to withhold potentially crucial exonerating information, helping to set in motion the chain of events that led to his wrongful convictions. Today, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms makes it clear that these techniques are not acceptable. The traumatizing strip search that the police conducted during this interview - despite the complete absence of reason to think that it was necessary - would not be permitted today, since it clearly violates the Charter right not to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure. As Justice Cory noted, this "deliberate, humiliating and unnecessary strip search and body cavity search ... was an unconscionable action." Moreover, Thomas was not given a caution statement explaining that anything he said could be used against him, nor was he informed that he could call a lawyer at any time. Individuals being detained today have the right to contact a lawyer immediately, and the police are required to tell them this. They also have the right not to incriminate themselves, which is an important cornerstone of our democratic system of justice.[29]

Finally, during Thomas' second and third trials, the judge did not present his side of the story in a fair and accurate manner to the jury. This failure to set out Thomas' case appropriately - thereby favouring the Crown rather than dispassionately enabling the jury to make up its own mind - is anathema to the trial judge's role in our adversarial system. Without this balanced perspective from the trial judge, the accused person cannot have a fair trial, as required under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Thomas' second and third trial judges failed to afford him that right.[30]

Wounds that Innocence Canada Cannot Heal

Thomas spent 45 months in prison for a crime that he did not commit. The Inquiry report described these months as "extremely hard time," noting that the first of the three prisons where Thomas lived was at that time "the worst or one of the worst prison facilities in Canada." Later, Thomas was kept in segregation and 23 hours each day. During his time in prison, Thomas discovered the body of a fellow inmate who had committed suicide.[31]

Thomas now suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and will likely continue to do so for the rest of his life. One of the psychiatrists who testified at the Inquiry stated that his "preoccupation with what has happened to him clouds his thinking every minute." Of course, we can hope that Thomas has been able to put some distance between himself and these horrifying events in the years since his exoneration, but he will never be entirely free. In Justice Cory's words, "The psychological scarring that he has suffered is just as grave and just as permanent as would be the loss of a limb."[32]

Just as Thomas' mental state has been forever changed by this series of events, so too has his reputation. Thomas has been officially exonerated; but as Justice Cory noted, "To wrongfully convict someone of a crime, particularly that of murder, is to forever damage the reputation of that person." This reputation has made life difficult for Thomas at work and with his neighbours - not to mention the firebombing of his house that could have killed Thomas and his family. To quote Justice Cory once more, "Truly, he bore the mark of Cain."[33]

[1] The Honourable Peter Cory, Commissioner. The Inquiry Regarding Thomas Sophonow. November 5, 2001, available at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/toc.html: "The Facts Giving Rise to the Inquiry, the Authorizing Order in Council, its Nature and Scope" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/intro/thefacts.html) ["Facts"]; "Factual Background" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/intro/factual.html) ["Background"]; R v Sophonow, [1984] MJ No 147 at para 1, 12 CCC (3d) 272 (Monnin CJM) [Sophonow].

[2] Inquiry, supra note 1: "Background"; "Alibi Evidence" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/alibi/index.html); "Timing of the Disclosure of the Alibi" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/alibi/timing.html) ["Timing"]; "The Atmosphere of Distrust which Existed in 1982 between Crown, Police and Defence Counsel" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/alibi/theatmosphere.html); "Police Awareness of Aspects of the Alibi Evidence" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/alibi/police.html); "Alibi Evidence: Recommendations" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/alibi/recommend.html); "Compensation: Dr. Roy O'Shaughnessy" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/compensation/drroy.html); Sophonow, supra note 1 at paras 2, 179, 187-192.

[4] Ibid: "Background"; "Interview"; "Interrogation"; "Facts."

[6] Ibid: "Doerksen"; "Twine."

[7] Ibid: "Facts"; "Interrogation"; "Twine"; "Timing"; "Introduction: Trials and Appeals of Thomas Sophonow" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/intro/trials.html) ["Trials"]; "Jailhouse Informants, Their Unreliability and the Importance of Complete Crown Disclosure Pertaining to Them: Thomas Cheng" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/jailhouse/cheng.html) ["Cheng"]; "Jailhouse Informants, Their Unreliability and the Importance of Complete Crown Disclosure Pertaining to Them: Adrian McQuade" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/jailhouse/mcquade.html) ["McQuade"]; "Jailhouse Informants, Their Unreliability and the Importance of Complete Crown Disclosure Pertaining to Them: Douglas Martin" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/jailhouse/martin.html) ["Martin"].

[8] Ibid: "Facts"; "Trials"; "The Role of the Trial Judge: Conduct of the Trial" ("Trial Judge"); Sophonow, supra note 2 at para 220.

[9] Inquiry, supra note 1: "Facts"; "Trials"; R v Sophonow, [1985] MJ No 10, 25 CCC (3d) 415 [Sophonow 2].

[10] Inquiry, supra note 1: "Facts"; "Background"; "Compensation: The Larger Community" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/compensation/thelarger.html) ["Larger Community"].

[12] "Report Released," supra note 11; "News Updates: Thomas Sophonow," (April 2003) 3 The AIDWYC Journal, p. 3.

[13] The Honourable Fred Kaufman, C.M., Q.C.: "Recommendation 74," Report of The Kaufman Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin: Recommendations, p. 26, available at: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/morin/morin_recom.pdf.

[14] See discussion in Truscott (Re), 2007 ONCA 575, 225 C.C.C. (3d) 321.

[15] "4. Tunnel Vision." FTP Heads of Prosecutions Committee Report of the Working Group on the Prevention of Miscarriages of Justice: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/ccr-rc/pmj-pej/p4.html#foot114.

[17] Lauren O'Neill Shermer, Karen C Rose & Ashley Hoffman, "Perceptions and Credibility: Understanding the Nuances of Eyewitness Testimony" (2011) 27 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 183 at 183, 185.

[18] Inquiry, supra note 1: "Eyewitness Identification: The Experts' Position Regarding Eyewitness Testimony : Elizabeth Loftus" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/eyewitness/el2.html) ["Loftus"].

[19] Ibid: "Disclosures: Statements of Eyewitnesses Made Under Hypnosis" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/disclosures/statements.html).

[20] R v Trochym, [2007] 1 SCR 239 at paras 13, 61, 46, 2007 SCC 6 (Deschamps J).

[21] Inquiry, supra note 1: "Loftus"; "Doerksen."

[24] "Understand the Causes: Informants." The Innocence Project: http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Snitches-Informants.php

[26] Ontario Crown Policy Manual: "In-Custody Informers," at http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/crim/cpm/2005/InCustodyInformers.pdf.

[27] Inquiry, supra note 1: "Twine"; "Cheng"; "Disclosures: Cheng"; "McQuade"; "Disclosures: McQuade"; "The Role of Crown Counsel in the Administration of Justice" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/crown/index.html); "Jailhouse Informants, Their Unreliability and the Importance of Complete Crown Disclosure Pertaining to Them Findings Regarding the Use of Jailhouse Informants in the Thomas Sophonow Trial" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/jailhouse/findings.html); "Disclosures: Failure to Disclose Relevant Material Regarding John Doerksen" http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/disclosures/failure.html.

[28] R v Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326, [1991] SCJ No 83; R v Driskell, [2004] MJ No 7 at para 34, 179 Man.R. (2d) 276 (Scurfield J).

[29] Inquiry, supra note 1: "Timing"; "Interrogation"; "Compensation: The First Photo Pack Line-Up and the Police Interrogation in Vancouver of Thomas Sophonow" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/compensation/thefirst.html); Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), c 11 ss 7, 8, 10(b), 11(d) [Charter].

[30] Charter, supra note 29 at s 11(d); Inquiry, supra note 1: "Trials."

[31] Inquiry, supra note 1: "Compensation: The Winnipeg Remand Centre" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/compensation/thewinnipeg.html); "Compensation: Stony Mountain Penitentiary" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/compensation/stony.html); "Compensation: Deprivation of Liberty" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/compensation/deprivationof.html)

[32] Ibid: "Compensation: The Physical and Psychological Effects of the Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment"

( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/compensation/thephysical.html); "Compensation: Evidence of Philip Sophonow" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/compensation/evidence_ps.html); "Compensation: Dr. Clifford Silverthorne" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/compensation/drclifford.html); "Compensation: Joel Grymaloski" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/compensation/joelg.html) "Compensation: Dr. Roy O'Shaughnessy" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/compensation/drroy.html) "Compensation: Peter Neufeld" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/compensation/peter.html)

[33] Ibid: "Facts"; "Larger Community"; "Compensation: Damage to Reputation" ( http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/compensation/damageto.html)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Author: Sarah Harland-Logan Barbara Stoppel was only 16 years old when she was brutally strangled to death at her workplace. On December 23, 1981, she was found close to death in the women's washroom at the Ideal Donut Shop in Winnipeg, Manitoba. A few days later, she passed away at a local hospital.

# data[].attributes.body
His first trial ended on 6 November 1982 when the jury concluded that it could not reach a unanimous verdict.

Sophonow’s second trial concluded on 17 March 1983 with a conviction.

Sophonow’s third trial began on 4 February 1985. Again, he was convicted of second-degree murder and not unly did the court reverse the conviction it also ruled that Mr Sophonow couldn't be tried for a fourth time

# data[].attributes.body
Former police chief Jack Ewatski announced Sophonow had been cleared of any involvement in Stoppel's death and publicly apologized to him on June 8, 2000

# data[].attributes.body
In the report it was deemed that Thomas Sophonow receive compensation of $2.6 million.

Compensation responsibility was spilt up by, 50 per cent by Winnipeg, 40 per cent by Manitoba and 10 per cent by Canada

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SOPHONOW INQUIRY REPORT RELEASED

Sophonow Inquiry Report Released

- - -
Province Acting with 10-point Plan, Compensation for Sophonow, Stoppel family

Attorney General Gord Mackintosh today released the report of the inquiry into the arrest and prosecution of Thomas Sophonow and unveiled a 10-point action plan to implement the 11 recommendations that require a provincial response.

Sophonow was tried three times and spent nearly four years in prison, accused of a crime he did not commit. Authored by retired Supreme Court justice Peter Cory, the report finds that while Manitoba's justice system has improved a great deal in the years since Sophonow's case was last before the courts, further changes must be made.

"This report offers a great opportunity to learn from this travesty and strengthen our justice system. It makes concrete recommendations to help prevent miscarriages of justice and we have already taken steps on each of the 11 recommendations affecting the province," Mackintosh said.

"It is also my sincere hope that compensation and the progress that will be made as a result of the report will help in the healing process for the Sophonow and Stoppel families whose lives have been so deeply and tragically affected."

Manitoba's 10-point action plan addresses each of the 11 recommendations that are directed at the province either entirely or in part.

The action plan features:

Compensation for Thomas Sophonow: Cory recommends Thomas Sophonow receive compensation of $2.6 million. The province has entered into discussions with its insurer, the federal government and the City of Winnipeg to determine how to give effect to this recommendation. It is also important that the province speak to Thomas Sophonow as well, once he has had an opportunity to review the report fully.

Cory said compensation responsibility should be shared as follows: 50 per cent by Winnipeg, 40 per cent by Manitoba and 10 per cent by Canada. The province accepts this, which means its share is just over $1 million. As a show of good faith, the province is prepared to immediately make an interim payment of 10 per cent or $100,000 to Sophonow. This compensation is in addition to $75,000 provided to Sophonow before the inquiry plus $832,700 in support for legal fees and expenses.

Compensation for the Stoppel family: The report also suggests that some form of compensation be considered for the Stoppel family. In addition to the $232,000 already provided to the family for legal fees, the province is prepared to make a $75,000 payment, bringing total support for the Stoppel family to $307,000, plus coverage for future counselling costs.

The Sophonow inquiry action team: A team of representatives from Manitoba police forces and prosecutions is being formed to deal with recommendations involving both groups. Issues to be addressed include guidelines for police interviews, the use of eyewitness identification line-ups, exhibit storage, tunnel vision avoidance and alibi evidence. It is recognized that police forces have made substantial changes since 1982.

Sophonow inquiry workshop: The recommendations of the Sophonow inquiry will be the subject of a seminar at a Crown attorney conference early next month.

New jailhouse informants policy: Cory complimented Manitoba on the excellence of its guidelines limiting the use of in-custody informants. The interim guidelines were introduced in 2000 and further recommendations by Cory have now been incorporated in the final policy. The new policy means that jailhouse informants will only be used in rare and highly exceptional circumstances.

Tunnel vision avoidance strategy: A new director of prosecutors' legal education will oversee training that includes methods of recognizing and avoiding tunnel vision. Training will also be provided to Crown attorneys on other issues raised by Cory, including ensuring that issues that could unfairly prejudice an accused are not raised in court without adequate evidence.

New code of standards for Crown attorneys: Manitoba has just adopted the standards developed by the International Association of Prosecutors, considered the most comprehensive set of standards in the Commonwealth.

New Crown and defence liaison committee: Following a request by the attorney general, the Crown/Defence Liaison Committee has been re-established to set up regular joint meetings. Prosecutions will also work with the criminal law subsection of the Manitoba Bar Association to address joint issues and assist with educational seminars, including a Sophonow Inquiry recommendation seminar planned for next year. Cory recommends at least one meeting a year to "put forward problems" and "seek mutually satisfactory solutions".

Evidence testing protocol: Police and Crown policies and procedures are now in place to ensure that critical pieces of evidence that link a suspect to a crime are tested where appropriate. Prosecutions will continue to make use of emerging testing technologies as they become available.

Engaging partners in justice system: Of the report's 43 recommendations, 11 apply entirely or in part to the province while the remainder fall to other areas of the justice system. To prompt action by the province's partners, the attorney general presented the report in person to federal Justice Minister Anne McLellan. The report has also been shared with Winnipeg Mayor Glen Murray and Winnipeg Police Service Chief Jack Ewatski.

In addition, the report is being forwarded to Manitoba's three courts: the Provincial Court, Court of Queen's Bench and Court of Appeal; the Law Society of Manitoba, Manitoba Bar Association and the Criminal Defence Lawyers Association; all police forces; and other provincial/territorial justice ministers and officials.

Copies of the Cory report will be available online at www.gov.mb.ca/justice/sophonow and by contacting Manitoba Statutory Publications at 204-945-3101 or toll free in Manitoba at 800-321-1203.

- 30 -
INQUIRY BACKGROUND
Inquiry Facts

Hearings of the inquiry spanned from October 2000 to June 2001.

The actual number of sitting days totaled 63.

A total of 64 witnesses were called to testify at the inquiry.

Inquiry costs to date total $ $4,056,797. This includes a $75,000 ex gratia payment to Thomas Sophonow made before the inquiry started.

Inquiry costs include legal fees, disbursements, staffing, travel, technical and office equipment.

Key Changes in the Law, Prosecutions Policy and Practice since 1982
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

This fundamental document came into force in April 1982.
Improved Federal Provincial and Territorial Co-operation
Heads of Prosecutions from across Canada now meet twice each year to discuss operational issues and share best practices. Since 2000, Manitoba has assumed a lead role in the national criminal law reform process. Manitoba's Deputy Minister chairs the national committee of Deputy Ministers of Justice, and the Assistant Deputy Attorney General was elected to chair the criminal law section of the Uniform Law Conference.
Disclosure Standards
Manitoba had already adopted the most comprehensive disclosure standards in Canada before the 1991 Stinchcombe decision of the Supreme Court set the standard for what the Crown was obliged to provide. Manitoba will continue to work with police to ensure that disclosure to defence counsel takes place in as timely a way as possible.
The Prosecutions Information and Scheduling System (PRISM)
PRISM is a database that allows Prosecutions to share information on criminal cases more easily with Justice staff throughout the province.
In-Custody Informer Policy
Manitoba's policies about the use of jailhouse informants, introduced in July 2000, are among the most thorough and restrictive in Canada and have been revised.
Use of Videotaped Evidence
It is now general practice for police to videotape interviews with suspects in serious crimes.
Prosecutions Departmental Re-organization
As part of a re-organization of the Prosecutions branch, one director will be responsible for the continuing legal education of Manitoba's Crown attorneys, including training in preventing tunnel vision.
Correctional Services Act
The act now specifies what action must be taken by correctional officers when they believe an inmate is in danger as well as what they must do if they have information that will be helpful in determining who might have committed a crime.
New Remand Centre
Opened in 1992, the centre replaced the remand facility at the Public Safety Building.
Victims' Bill of Rights
The legislation helps to balance the rights of victims with the rights of offenders, and is the most progressive act of its kind in Canada.
Chronological Background
December 23, 1981 Sixteen-year-old Barbara Stoppel was found critically injured at the Ideal Donut shop in St. Boniface where she worked part-time. She was strangled with twine.

December 29, 1981 Barbara Stoppel died from the injuries she received.

March 12, 1982 Thomas Sophonow was arrested in Vancouver, B.C., and brought to Winnipeg. He was charged with murder and held in custody.

October 18, 1982 Thomas Sophonow's first trial on a charge of second-degree murder began before Mr. Justice Louis Deniset. Sophonow entered a plea of not guilty. Rocky Pollack represented Sophonow. George Dangerfield and Gregg Lawlor acted for the Crown.

November 6, 1982 After deliberating for 28 hours, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict and a mistrial was declared. Sophonow remained in custody.

February 21, 1983 The second trial on the same matter began before Mr. Justice John Scollin. Sophonow again pleaded not guilty. Greg Brodsky represented Sophonow. George Dangerfield and Gregg Lawlor acted for the Crown.

March 17, 1983 The jury convicted Sophonow of second degree murder. Sophonow was sent to the federal corrections system.

March 13, 1984 The Manitoba Court of Appeal overturned the conviction with a 2-1 decision. The court ruled that the judge did not properly instruct the jury hearing the second trial and a new trial was ordered. Sophonow remained in custody.

March 26, 1984 The Crown appealed the Manitoba Court of Appeal's ruling to the Supreme Court.

December 10, 1984 The Supreme Court upheld the Manitoba Court of Appeal's call for a third trial.

February 4, 1985 The third trial began before Mr. Justice Benjamin Hewak. Sophonow again pleaded not guilty. Greg Brodsky represented Sophonow. Stu Whitley and Robert Gosman acted for the Crown.

March 16, 1985 The jury spent 52 hours deliberating and delivered a verdict of guilty following the dismissal of one of the jurors.

December 12, 1985 The Manitoba Court of Appeal overturned the conviction based on errors in law that occurred during the third trial. Sophonow was released from custody.

January 6, 1986 The Crown appealed the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Province of Manitoba | News Releases | Sophonow Inquiry Report Released

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sophonow Inquiry Report Released - - - Province Acting with 10-point Plan, Compensation for Sophonow, Stoppel family Attorney General Gord Mackintosh today released the report of the inquiry into the arrest and prosecution of Thomas Sophonow and unveiled a 10-point action plan to implement the 11 recommendations that require a provincial response.

# data[].attributes.body
A story line of Thomas's events that day from trying to see his daughter and being denied all the way up to his trials summed up in a short 5 minute educative video.

# data[].attributes.body
Thomas Sophonow son Christopher Thomas Dejarlais, 41, of Calgary, was arrested and charged with second degree murder of Randeep Singh Dhaliwal, 39.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A man charged with murder in the death of a Calgary man last Friday has been identified as the son of a wrongfully convicted man from a high-profile Winnipeg killing nearly four decades ago.

Christopher Thomas Dejarlais, 41, of Calgary, was arrested Sunday and charged with second-degree murder in the death of Randeep Singh Dhaliwal, 39, who was found dead in a Pineridge home.

Global News has learned Dejarlais is the son of Thomas Sophonow, a man wrongly accused of murder nearly 36 years ago.

"Chris went through a lot growing up," Dejarlais' uncle Edward said. "With Thomas in jail...Chris didn't have a father figure and he knew his dad was in jail.

"When Thomas got arrested, everybody felt the pain. We knew; my mom passed away knowing Tom was innocent and when my mom passed away, also, it was hard for everybody."

Barbara Stoppel, 16, was killed in a doughnut shop in Winnipeg, where she was found strangled and unconscious on the floor.

Thomas Sophonow was found guilty of killing the waitress in 1981, based largely on the testimony of a witness who contradicted in court what she had told police. The defence was not told about the contradiction at the time, and Sophonow spent almost four years in prison before he was freed in 1985.

Sophonow later received $2.6 million in compensation for the 45 months he spent incarcerated.
With files from The Canadian Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Son of man wrongfully convicted in Winnipeg killing charged with Calgary murder | Globalnews.ca

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A man charged with murder in the death of a Calgary man last Friday has been identified as the son of a wrongfully convicted man from a high-profile Winnipeg killing nearly four decades ago. Christopher Thomas Dejarlais, 41, of Calgary, was arrested Sunday and charged with second-degree murder in the death of Randeep Singh Dhaliwal, 39, who was found dead in a Pineridge home.