KEY EVIDENCE TO QUASH VERDICT

Regina vs McLeod et al, 1979

1. BRIBED AND COERCED WITNESSES.

a) Helen Mitchell

Helen Mitchell changed her statement four times based on coaching by Sam McReelis. Her evidence could have confirmed a gun in Bill Matiyek’s boot, which would have cast doubt on the Crown’s evidence. She was personally attended to by Sam McReelis, who picked her up in St. Catherine’s and drove her to London for the trial.

In naming Choice members, Helen named those she knew, not those she saw on October 18, 1978 at the Queen’s Hotel.

TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, p.p. 852-853

Helen Mitchell, for Crown, in-chief

Q. Now, Miss Mitchell, can you tell us whether you were in the Queens Hotel on the evening that Bill Matiyek died?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And can you tell me whether you know any of the accused men who are seated before the court?

A. Yes.

Q. Now I don’t want to know how you came to know them, just that you know them and could you indicate to us please which of the accused before the court you knew before October 18th, 1978.

A. Not saying that they were in

Q. Just that you

A. Knew them before?

Q. I want you to tell us all those that you knew before October 18th

okay?

before you came into the hotel on that evening.

A. Merv Blaker.

Q. That’s the gentleman who is the first one from the right?

A. Yes, the one on the far end. Gord Van Haarlem, whatever, if that’s how you pronounce it.

Q. Which one is he?

A. The one sitting second from the end.

Q. Okay.

A. Rick Sauve.

Q. Is that the fifth from your right? Yes?

A. Yes. And Larry Hurren.

Q. Is that the man next to Rick Sauve?

A. Yes.

Q. Yes?

A. And none others.

Yet, Helen Mitchell referred to David Hoffman as Tee-Hee, even though she didn’t know him.

Helen Mitchell, for Crown, cr-ex Martin.

p.p. 867

Q. Miss Mitchell, you told us you saw some men come in and you gave us three names and then you said

Tee-Hee, I didn’t know him then.

Is that right?

A. That’s right, yes.

Q. So on October 18th the man you say is Tee-Hee was a stranger to you?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that right? You had never seen him before?

A. No.

Q. And neither did you know the nickname Tee-Hee or any other name for him. Is that right?

A. That’s right, yes.

Helen didn’t know Tee-Hee; she saw someone with white on his feet. But she did not say that the man she saw who looked like Hoffman was wearing running shoes. In cr-ex by Martin, she said there was something white on his feet,

It was shoes or if he was just wearing socks I don’t know, but there was white.

(p.p. 872). Having told the police this, it seems obvious that her testimony was fed to her. She didn’t know Hoffman beforehand, and therefore could not have known that he liked wearing running shoes. The police knew

that Hoffman was in Kitchener that night and could not possibly have been at the Queen’s Hotel at the time Bill Matiyek was killed, but with Helen Mitchell able to say that someone had white on his feet they were able to say that he was there.

b) Kathy Cotgrave

Kathy Cotgrave can be discredited on the basis that she was paid $10,000.00 for phrasing her testimony a certain way. She was bribed by police, which can be argued based on the statement of Gail Doyle.

c) Bill Goodwin

His testimony was shaped by a lie he told Julie Joncas and interviews he had with Sam McReelis and Gary Woods. Larry Sauve can say that Bill Goodwin lied in his testimony.

d) Roger Davey

Police had the phone records and knew that a call had been placed from David Hoffman’s house to the Davey residence early in the morning of October 19, 1978. He was threatened with being charged with accessory after the fact if he didn’t testify. Because of this, Roger perjured himself, giving testimony that he took the call from Rick Sauve, which he didn’t. He also said that it sounded like a party was going on in the background, something he couldn’t possibly have heard since he did not answer the phone.

2. PERJURY AT TRIAL.

a) Roger Davey lied when he said that he answered a call from Rick Sauve the night Bill Matiyek was killed.

b) Bill Goodwin lied when he said he had a conversation with Rick Sauve in which some

thing happening to Matiyek was threatened by Sauve.

c) Sam McReelis lied when he said he knew nothing of Gary being shot. Betty King, Gary’s mother, did not know that Gary had been shot until Sam McReelis said to her, lots of young fellas go out at night and don’t tell their parents what they do but we think Gary was shot that night.

Both McReelis and Cousins were in her house at the time, but later in court the police denied having told her anything like that.

3. WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE.

a) The Kitchener clubhouse was wiretapped. The police introduced these wiretaps to the lawyers prior to a day in court, but they were not complete. They did not continue to the time of the raid on the Kitchener clubhouse (attended by Terry Hall and others) on the night of Oc

ber 18, 1978. The police had continued knowledge of Hoffman’s whereabouts until about 10:30 pm that night, when he left the clubhouse to go home.

b) A meeting of witnesses took place after Bill Matiyek’s death at Dave Hills’ place. Some

thing happened at Hills’ house that police want hushed up, including Shortreed and Wilson. Doug Shortreed made a statement, or at least his partner David Kelly did in his presence, about Dave Hills to Wilson. Wilson’s testimony makes that very clear. Shortreed and Kelly were probably at Hills’ home and later reported a statement made by Hills which was never brought forward. What was it?

c) What happened to Comeau’s jacket?

4. CRIME SCENE TAMPERING AND THE CHAIN OF POSSESSION OF MATIYEK’S GUN

a) The body was moved and was never marked off.

b) No photographs were taken of the crime scene, according to Bill Wakely.

c) Tables and chairs were righted; persons attending to the body moved chairs to access.

d) Testimonial evidence suggests that Matiyek was in the possession of drugs and that his weapon had nine cartridges. Helen Mitchell had also seen a gun in Matiyek’s boot. This was not found and is now in the possession of Lawrence Leoen. The gun Matiyek had in his hand was not discovered until around 10:00 the following morning. Matiyek’s body left the Queen’s Hotel at 11:14 pm and went to the Port Hope hospital via ambulance

no police accompanied the body. From there, it went to the Port Hope morgue and then to Civic Hospital in Pe

ough. At or about 10:00 am, October 19, 1978, Bill Wakely discovered the small .32 calibre semi-automatic the upper, left, inside breast pocket of Matiyek’s jacket. (Matiyek’s clothes were piled on his chest as his body lay on a guernsey.) Three witnesses, Comeau, Sauve and Everett, say the gun was in Matiyek’s left hand prior to the shooting. When he was shot he fell to the floor, presumably with the gun still in his hand or falling from his hand to the floor. Bill Wakely did not discover anything in

Matiyek’s boot. How did the gun get from Matiyek’s hand at the time of the shooting to his inside pocket the following morning?

f) No police were present at the hospital guarding the evidence.

5. THE INVESTIGATION.38 1638 CB

a) The crime scene wasn’t dusted for prints. It was claimed that there was nothing there except greasy and porous material, from which prints can’t be lifted very easily. But there were glasses and pieces of broken glass on the floor which could have been dusted.

b) Matiyek’s gun was not dusted for prints.

c) The photo identification was done by Constable Don Denis, someone with no prior experince in photo identification and no one to inform him of proper procedures. Some photographs had more attention drawn to them by way of a red dot placed on them (to indicate more pictures underneath). At one point, two witnesses viewed the array together. Denis’ instructions to witnesses included not only to select pictures of those people that were there, but also to identify those thought to possibly have been there. At least, that was the case with Gayle Thompson:

TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, p.p. 613-614

Gayle Thompson, for Crown, cr-ex Kerbel

Q. I believe the officer who was in charge of the line-up, the array, Constable Denis, told you why you were there?

A. Yes, what the purpose

Q. What were his instructions?

A. To take my time, look over all the pictures; if I saw anyone that I knew for certain or I thought possibly had been there the night that Bill was shot.

Q. Let’s just stop there a moment. I want you to go back over that. He told you to take your time?

A. Yes.

Q. Look at all the pictures?

A. Correct.

Q. And to indicate anybody who was there or who you thought might possibly be there?

A. Correct.

...Further down on p.p. 614

Q. Let’s try to be a little more specific, Miss Thompson. Let’s go back. He told you to take your time to look at all the photographs and then what did he tell you to do?

A. To instruct him when I saw someone I recognized as being there that night.

Q. Or who might possibly have been there that night?

A. Correct.

Q. Both?

A. Yes.

The pictures were placed in folders marked

SCMC

and

OUTLAWS

. During the pre

nary hearing, Kathy Cotgrave talked about the markings on the front of the folders:

TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, p.p. 1342-1343

Kathy Cotgrave, for Crown, cr-ex Cugelman

Q. Perhaps I might refer you to your evidence given at the preliminary hearing in Port Hope on February the 19th, 1979.

I will put to you certain questions and answers and I will ask you if you can recall having been asked the questions and giving the answers?

A. Mmm-hm.

Q. Beginning at Page 192 at line 8, and we were previously discussing your identification of my client at the photographic line-up.

Q. And were there more than one photograph of him in these albums?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. Pardon?

A. Yes, I think so.

Q. And the folders, I think you have already indicated were marked

with

Satan’s Choice

, or whatever?

A. Well, yeah, they were all opened out on a table; before you

opened them up they were marked like that.

d) There were various discussions among witnesses, which may have affected testimony, about what happened in the lounge of the Queen’s Hotel on the night of October 18:

TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, p.p. 649

Gayle Thompson, for Crown, cr-ex Kerbel

Q. And I take it that the Port Hope and Cobourg area being a relatively small community you had occasion to see Miss Cotgrave and Miss Foote and Miss Hanna after the 18th of Oc

ber?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And I suggest to you that it would have been natural for the, for several of you to talk about that evening, to recall the death of Mr. Matiyek?

A. That’s correct.

Q. He was a friend of all of you. You did do that?

A. Yes, we spoke about it.

Kathy Cotgrave, Jamie Hanna and David Gillispie all testified to discussions among wit

es. Under cross-examination by Grossman, Jamie Hanna clearly sets out that

We were together the night of the murder

,

about an hour

at Dave Hills’ home. (p.p. 1454-1455). Hanna was very evasive, but Grossman didn’t pursue it long.

David Gillispie in his testimony implied that his statements were influenced by others. Gillispie gave three statements to the police

October 19, November 28 and December 29. The last one contains a very substantial change:

TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS, p.p. 1517-1520

David Gillispie, for Crown, cr-ex Kerbel

Q. All right, and I take it that by the t 0 1 PP

S

n

gr

ime you gave your statement on the 29th of De

ber, 1978, you were aware of some of the details of what other people had said that they ob

served?

A. Yes.

...Halfway down page 1518

Q. I would like you to look at your statement which is exhibit No. 74C, dated December the 29th, 1978, and it’s headed

David William Gillispie, 104 Walton Street, Port Hope.

, and it reads as follows:

Since your last statement and as a result of further investigation I

would like to clarify the following points.

#1. With reference to the first sentence of your statement that you

and Douglas Peart wanted to be in the Queen’s Hotel by 11:00 P.M.

Comeau/Sauve

Page 8

May 10, 1995

Q. Why did you want to be there at that time?

A. We were going to pick up Kathy Cotgrave, she was to be done work

at 11:00 P.M. then we were going to go and party.

#2. Question. You stated in your statement that you and Doug Peart

arrived at about twenty to twelve...

HIS LORDSHIP:

Eleven

.

KERBEL:

Eleven

, sorry:

twenty to eleven. You went into the back room and met Sue Foote and

Gayle Thompson. Sue Foote believes you came in about ten to eleven.

She and Peart started playing shuffle board. At this point she

stated that about eight Satan’s Choice members walked in by the back

door. Do you recall seeing eight members coming into the lounge?

Were they in addition to the members such as Murray Blaker, Rick

Sauve, Fred Jones and a few others whose names you did not know.

Answer. In my previous statement it was wrote down wrong. When

Douglas Peart and I arrived, Murray Blaker and Ric. Sauve arrived a

few minutes after we did...

...p.p.1520

Q. So I take it, that the first time you tell the police that these men arrived after you were there, is in this statement of December 29th, 1978 when Sargeant McReelis tells you what Sue Foote said happened. Is that correct?

A. That’s correct.

e) Someone on the police force was aware of the meeting at Dave Hills’ place. P.C. Kenneth Wilson, for Crown, cr-ex Kerbel. Kerbel had been questioning Wilson about seven people he observed around Matiyek’s body. Jamie Hanna, Gayle Thompson, Sue Foote, Peter Murdoch, Rod Stewart, Peter LaBrash, Kathy Cotgrave. There were 12-15 there when Wilson arrived but by the time he got around to taking names, only seven remained. He named the seven,

and the de

ceased

...

p.p. 140

Q. And the deceased. Constable you have been making reference to your notes. May I see them please?

A. Certainly.

Q. Thank you, sir. Perhaps you could indicate where they begin and where they end?

A. Page 72 and they end at 76.

Q. Thank you, sir. I am sorry, I can’t make out this.

A. David Hills.

Q. David Hills. Thank you sir...(goes on to question about seven people around deceased). Not Hills nor Douglas Shortreed nor David Kelly were ever called.

...p.p. 143 (Wilson for Crown, cr-ex Kerbel)

Q. May I see your notes again please, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. What about Mr. Hills, did he provide you with an identification, description, or name of a man he believed shot Mr. Matiyek?

A. Not me, no.

Q. Not you. But you have

were you present when Mr. Hills made some statement?

A. No.

Q. Well, it appears there is some notation in your notebook, is there not, with respect to Mr. Hills?

A. Yes, there is. It is information which was hearsay evidence which I wrote there which was passed on to me by the twelve till eight shift.

Q. Who in the twelve till eight shift gave you that information?

A. One of the two constables mentioned here. I don’t know which one.

Q. What are their names please?

A. Constable Kelly and Shortreed.

Q. Kelly and Shortreed.

A. Right.

f) The crime scene wasn’t preserved.

g) Fraudulent evidence was put before the jurists by way of obstruction, perjury and cor

tion to prove mens rea.

6. INCONSISTENCIES

a) Kenneth Wilson said that he attended at the Port Hope police station to take a statement from David Gillispie and Douglas Peart; Wakely confirmed this. In Gillispie’s testimony, under cross-examination, he clearly stated on several occasions that he gave a statement to Dave Kelly and Sam McReelis. Was Gillispie referring to a meeting with Kelly at Dave Hills’ house? Did Kelly drive Gillispie and Peart to the police station?

c) Rod Stewart contradicts himself in his testimony.

TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS, p.p. 1639-1641

Rod Stewart, for Crown, in-chief

Q. All right, let’s talk about the large group of people that came in then, how did they arrive?

A. Together. We were sitting at the bar, talking, and without any real noticing that an

body had come in, we realized that there were about fifteen people around us, so they came in together and just seemed to be there all of a sudden.

...p.p. 1641, bottom of the page

THE WITNESS: I saw them come in as a group...

7. NEW WITNESSES

a) Roger Davey swore a statement saying that he perjured himself at the trial. He was threat

ened with being charged with accessory after the fact.

b) Diane Davey answered the call from Rick Sauve. She has sworn a statement to this effect.

c) Michael Everett was a witness at the Queen’s Hotel the night Bill Matiyek was killed. He saw the gun in Matiyek’s hand as he approached the table.

d) Gail Doyle can give evidence that Kathy Cotgrave was paid $10,000.00 to phrase her testimony a certain way. Kathy told her this around 1981, in the

presence of Brian Babcock and Faith Doyle. Kathy also told Gail that other witnesses were paid varying amounts of money in consideration for phrasing their testimony a certain way.

e) Daniel Racicot was in the Queen’s the night of the murder. He saw two men in green Ontario Hydro parkas, one on either side of another man who appeared to be holding a re

er. Racicot was seated at a table next to the Matiyek table, on the south side. He saw Gary Comeau seated beside Bill Matiyek and has sworn a statement saying that Gary Comeau was definitely not the gunman.

f) Larry Sauve can say that Bill Goodwin lied in his testimony. When Goodwin went to see Larry about borrowing his truck, two of Matiyek’s cousins were there as well as Rick Sauve. Larry says that the conversation Goodwin testified to did not take place. With Matiyek’s cous

ins there, it would seem highly unlikely that a conversation of that nature would be had in their presence.

8. NEW EVIDENCE.

a) The Toronto clubhouse wiretaps.