March 6, 2025 • 43 mins
On July 17, 1973, 40 year old father of two and local chef Ting Fong Chan was beaten and stabbed to death on his way home from his night shift in Manitoba, Winnipeg, CA. A witness saw silhouettes of 4 or 5 men with long hair. Under the assumption that the men were Native American, police began to canvas the local indigenous population. A man named Adam Woodhouse told investigators about a recent gathering at his home with a few other indigenous men. Even though this gathering did not take place on the night of the crime and nothing suspicious was described, police rounded up Clarence, Russell, and Allan Woodhouse, as well as Brian Anderson. Four false statements were extracted and written in a language that neither of the accused fully understood. Not surprisingly, none of the physical evidence matched the four young men. Despite this, their alibi witnesses, and accusations of police brutality, the jury chose to believe the false confessions.
For more information or to get involved, visit:
https://www.innocencecanada.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCS7uL2jLzU
Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.
We have worked hard to ensure that all facts reported in this show are accurate. The views and opinions expressed by the individuals featured in this show are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of Lava for Good.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
On Tuesday, July seventeenth, nineteen seventy three, a local chef
and father of two, Ting Fong Chan, walked home from
his night shift in Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada at around six am.
His body was found beaten and stabbed death near a
construction site. An eyewitness saw the assailants through the darkness
and described the group as four or five men with
(00:23):
long hair. The police asked if the assailants may have
been indigenous. The eyewitness couldn't say either way without a
definitive answer, investigators began campassing the local indigenous population, and
a man named Adam Woodhouse told them about a recent
gathering at his home attended by Clarence and Russell Woodhouse
as well as their cousin Brian Anderson. However, this gathering
(00:43):
happened on Thursday night, not on Monday into Tuesday, the
night of the crime. Despite the confusion over the date,
as well as the uncertainty over the assailants ethnicity, Clarence
and Russell Woodhouse, Brian Anderson, as well as their younger
friend Allan Woodhouse underwent a series of coercive and in
some cases, violent interrogations, resulting in four false confessions written
(01:06):
in a language in which none of them were entirely fluent.
The trial consisted of the presentation of these alleged confessions
against four matching recantations, as well as alibi witnesses and
accusations of police misconduct and brutality. Fifty years later, Brian
Anderson and Alan Woodhouse share their harrowing story and the
(01:28):
struggle to clear their names. This is wrongful Conviction. Welcome
back to wrongful Conviction. This is an episode it's going
(01:50):
to take everyone who listens on a journey, not just
far away because this took place in the Great White North,
but also to a place of disbelief for how the system,
in this case, the system in Canada, can do what
it does to innocent civilians. Let me introduce our guests
and then we'll explain more about the case. With us,
(02:11):
we have two wrongfully convicted men. First of all, Brian Anderson,
Welcome to wrongful Conviction. I'm sorry you're here under the services,
but I'm happy you're here. Thank you and with us
as well as Alan Woodhouse. So grateful for you being
here as well.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Thank you very much for having me here today.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
And joining us. Is an incredible woman named bob and Sody.
Bobbin is the attorney of record for these men. She
was the legal director at Innocence Canada at the time
that she got involved with this case, and she's currently
got one of the most amazing and interesting jobs, I
think in the entire world of criminal justice. She is
the intake director at the Innocence Project of New York.
(02:52):
So Bobin, Welcome to Wrongful Conviction.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
Thanks so much for having us, Jason.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
So.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Bobn I almost feel like I want to let you
set the stage here. I mean, this case is so nuts.
It involves lies from people in positions of power, false confessions.
At least one of the men didn't even speak the
language of the confession that he was signing, that he
didn't even know was a confession, Jason.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
For me, this was one of the first cases I
worked on in my role as legal director at Innocence Canada,
and it's one of those cases that right off the
batch you know that something isn't right.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
You know.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
My co counsel, Jerome Kennedy has always put it best.
We started off knowing that this was a nineteen seventy
three case. It involved the Winnipeg Police service, four young
Indigenous men and George Dangerfield. And as far as innocence
Canada was concerned, that is a recipe for wrongful conviction.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
And George Dangerfield just what a name for a guy
who has the dubious distinction of being the Crown prosecutor
who is responsible for the most wrongful convictions in Canadian history.
And he was unfortunately the top prosecutor in Manitoba, Canada
for thirty years. And just to paint a picture of
the guys who ended up getting caught in this nightmare,
(04:10):
Brian Anderson, who's with us today at seventh grade education
and no knowledge of the criminal legal system. He grew
up on the Fairford Indian Reserve between Lake Manitoba and
Lake Saint Mark, about two hundred and thirty kilometers or
one hundred and forty three miles north of Winnipeg. The
eldest had ten children. At eighteen, he moved to Winnipeg
to work and live with his grandparents. And his first
language was not English. He barely spoke English at all.
(04:32):
His first language was Ojibwe Salto. And he had no
criminal record whatsoever. This is important, that's important to know.
But it turned out not to matter in this case.
So Brian, tell me about your life growing up. Did
you have a happy childhood? Yes?
Speaker 4 (04:45):
I did? I think I did.
Speaker 5 (04:49):
You don't know anything about life at that age.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
So right, you're a kid, I mean, let's face it.
As a teenager you just said yeah, exactly, figuring it
out just like anybody else. And Alan, what about for you?
You lived on the Fairport Indian Reserve as well, with
English as a second language. You had a ninth grade
education there. You were seventeen years old, but also with
no criminal record, and moved to Winnipeg two months before
(05:14):
this awful crime happened. So Alan, what was your life
like growing up in those times?
Speaker 2 (05:19):
From what you can remember, Well, my childhost is pretty rugged,
so to speak, of eight brothers and two sisters, as
I was a lot of people. Brian's younger brother I
have and I used to be my handout buddy. We're
up at the same age. Ban were a bit of wolder,
so he hung out with you a wolder crowd. The
only reason I was in Winnipeg is because to look
for work. There's no work in a reserve, of course,
(05:41):
because I was over sixteen, so I just moved to
Winnipeg about a couple of months when I got arrested.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
Right and before you were arrested, the police picked up
Clarence Woodhouse, followed by Russell Woodhouse, then you Alan Woodhouse,
and lastly Brian Anderson. And the whole thing started with
a statement from Woodhouse. First of all, that's a lot
of woodhouses. So just to keep things straight for our audience.
From what I gather, Woodhouse must be a common name, Brian,
Are any of you guys related?
Speaker 5 (06:11):
Yes, I am. They are my cousins, which is the Woodhouses.
Clarence and Russell, we had the same grandfather. We knew
each other right from the little kids.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
I'm not related to idiotom actually not even Adam Mudos.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
So Clarence and Russell were related to you, Brian. But
Adam and Allen aren't related to any of you guys, right, yes,
so the crime itself. July seventeenth, nineteen seventy three, forty
zho men in ting Pong Chan was beaten and stabbed
to death near a downtown construction site in Manitoba, which
is Winnipeg. Mister Chan was a father of two and
a chef at a restaurant called The Beachcomber. He was
(06:46):
walking home from the night shift and his body was
found at six am on the seventeenth. So then comes
this ridiculous quote unquote investigation.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
For the first couple of days after Chan's body was found,
no investigation occurred. Essentially, they were doing a scan of
the neighborhood and they came across a witness named Daisy
Towel and Daisy, what's interesting about her is she didn't
really see much at all. What she claims to have
seen under the light of a lamppost in the middle
(07:20):
of the night without her glasses, and she indicated that
she had very poor vision was the outline of four
or five individuals that had long hair, And when the
officers put it to her whether she thought they were indigenous,
she said, well, yes, they could be. And you know,
the important point here is this was the seventies, and
(07:40):
so I'm presuming a lot of people had long hair.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
I have fond memories of that era. I mean, long hair,
great music, and this witness could have easily and vaguely
stuck me into this group as well. I mean I
fit that much at the description. That's the only description
they had. So it's important to note that the police
offered this blurry cited eyewitness the suggestion that the assailants
were Indigenous, not the other way around. And Alan, I
(08:06):
know you eventually became a jail house lawyer. Does it
strike you as business as usual for the police in
that era with in doubt, just take an indigenous guy, right,
just start targeting Indigenous people.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
Oh yeah, I mean I think goes wrong right away.
It's Native people even in the reserve. You know, something
happened outside the reserves. There's better community out there, right
there's there's been Native people. There'd be police driving around
looking for so and sorry though, that's the reality of it.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
Unfortunately, the police ended up canvassing the neighborhood on the
lookout essentially for young Indigenous men. And that's how a
few days later they came upon Adam Woodhouse's house and
spoke to him. They also spoke to his common law
partner and his common law partner's daughter. And what I
(08:54):
will say is English wasn't even the first language of
these witnesses. So Adam was also someone who was struggling
to understand this context, wasn't provided an interpreter, and was
participating and so when they spoke to Adam on July
twenty second, he said, well, yes, on the night of
the murderer, I had a group of young Indigenous men
(09:15):
with me, including Brian Anderson, Clarence Woodhouse and Russell Woodhouse.
And he distinctly didn't mention Alan. And what's interesting about
the fact that he said that is almost immediately following
his common law partner and his common law partner's daughter
said yes, these young men were at our house, but
that actually occurred Thursday and not on the night in question.
(09:40):
And the reason that's interesting is a lot of the
information that Adam was recalling from the evening actually related
to things that happened on Thursday. So, for example, he
referenced receiving his check he usually receives that on a
Thursday night. He referenced using that check in order to
buy beer again as a result of what happened on
(10:00):
Thursday night. But essentially, the police, ignoring what you know
his common law partner and her daughter said, decided to
venture out. And this is when this web began to weave,
and within twenty four hours they managed to get you
alleged confessions from Clarence Woodhouse, Russell Woodhouse, Allan Woodhouse and
(10:23):
Brian Anderson.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Wow, so no, I mean they didn't even pretend to
do a real investigation, just the assumption by the police
that the assailants were indigenous. And Adam Woodhouse told them
about gathering at his home with Clarence Russell and Brian,
nothing about a murder or any conspiracy to commit murder
or any criminal activity at all. And it even turned
(10:46):
out to be the wrong night entirely. Monday into Tuesday
was when it happened. This was Thursday, but that didn't matter.
And now the interrogations and false confessions began in a
language you guys didn't even.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
Under I think a really important part of this is
understanding the sequence of the confessions, just to understand how
they utilized classic red technique despite the fact that everything
pointed against them. So yes, all four confessions, and this
is important, all four of the confessions that these boys
are alleged to have made start off with the exact
(11:22):
same sentence. All four of them say, on Monday night,
I was and when I read that, I knew that
something was amiss. We have four men who are alleged
to have written these confessions in separate rooms, separate circumstances,
varying understanding of English, and yet all of their statements
start the exact same way. And so that's when I
(11:46):
delved into the actual sequence, like how did they obtain them?
And what I saw was classic retechnique.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
You know.
Speaker 3 (11:53):
They started off with Clarence. They took him to the scene,
brought him back to the station, They asked him to
mark up the body and where it was that he
had attacked, you know, ting fong Chen, immediately assuming that
he was the person responsible. Ultimately, this allegedly led to
his confession. And what's interesting about the confession is it's
(12:14):
a partial confession and the only person that's mentioned in
it is Russell. Then they go to Russell and they
go look at this confession that Clarence gave you. And
what's interesting about that is that Russell didn't even have
enough of an understanding of the English language to be
able to read the confession that Clarence apparently made. So
(12:36):
they brought Clarence into the room with Russell to read
to his brother this confession he's alleged to have made.
And so Russell apparently makes the confession same thing on
Monday night, I was, and so not only does he
now mention Clarence himself, but he also references Alan, and
so that is how Alan is brought into the story,
(12:58):
and so then Alan is arrested. He is also shown
the confession that now Clarence has made and subsequently Russell
have made. And what's interesting about Alan is he was
subjected to physical abuse because he refused to make this confession.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
That night, in that particular, when I got picked up,
you know, there was a knock on the door, and
there's two people standing there in suits. I guess you
call them planes closed.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
Now.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
He asked me what my name was, So I told
them who I was. So I said, sorry, grand them
my wrist. You're the one we're looking for it. So
I said, way wait, I said, what's going on? I
want to talk to you. I went downstairs with and
Mark carr on downstairs and they took me to the
police station. We were the police. I asked him what
its this about it? He said murder? I said murder.
I said, maybe they had found a dead body and
(13:45):
they wanted me to go and recognize some of the
body or see what I mean. When we got to
the police station and they said Okay, where were you
on Tuesday night? So I tood, not hoom. Who else
was there? There's nobody there. It's just me. My mother
and I lived there, just had that little apartment, and
my mother well she went out a lot, she drank
a lot. But anyway, so I told him I was
(14:06):
at home and they said, oh, there's nobody there, said,
I know, you weren't there. You were at Adams Woodha Streets.
I said, no, I wasn't there. I was there on Thursday. Yeah.
They went back and forth for a while and they
got angrier and angrier, and they started getting physical. I
mean they were really rough. I mean they were they're
hitting me. I mean, I was all bloody. So after
(14:26):
four hours they rode up the statement, told me to
sign it and then you can go, said, So I
signed it, I said, After they signed, their hand covered
me ultimately.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
Again. Interesting, his confession starts off with on Monday night
I was and the variation there was. Now this confession
includes Clarence, it includes Russell, it includes Alan, and there
is the first reference to Brian Anderson. And so then
they go to Brian and they speak to him, and
they take Brian to the scene. They show him alleged
(15:00):
weapons that were utilized, you know, and they show him
the confessions of the other three points. Like on Monday night, I.
Speaker 5 (15:08):
Was on the twenty third, I got picked up for murder.
Like I wasn't even a suspect. I was charged already.
They got me to sign a piece of paper, which
I did, and I didn't know that was the confession
that supposedly I had made.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
The idea that you were signing a piece of paper
in a language you didn't speak with nobody there to
guide you or help you or advise you. I read
somewhere that you had thought that it might have been
just something related to your possessions that they were keeping
on storage for you while they arrested you. Is that accurate.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
Yes.
Speaker 5 (15:42):
What they do is they make you empty your pockets
and that they put stuff aside and you have to
sign for them. And that's what I thought it was.
That's how crooked they were, you know, they didn't care
just because they had these witnesses they were calling them.
That's where they based all this stuff from.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
And so at the end of the day, as a
result of this sort of linear sequential experience, now all
four boys are alleged to have participated. The statements that
start very much the same build on each other. So
first you have just Clarence, then you have Clarence and Russell,
then you have Clarence Russell and Alan, and finally the
(16:23):
final statement Clarence Russell, Alan and Brian have participated. And
so essentially you have each of the young men pointing
the finger at each other and weaving this web for the.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
Police actually feels a little bit like a Canadian version
of New York City's own horror show known as The
Central Park Five, currently known as Exonerated five because they
use some of the same techniques differently, but you know,
(16:55):
using everybody against each other and the physical abuse. And
it's very important for our audience to know that in
twenty nine percent of the DNA exonerations, the person who
was proven with absolute certainty scientific certainty to be innocent
confessed to the crime they didn't commit. Just like in
this case, Bobin, what about physical or forensic evidence? Did
(17:17):
they collect any, did they examine it? Was there any?
Did they even make a show out of trying to
solve this case?
Speaker 3 (17:23):
So that is where this case gets interesting, Jason. They
actually did collect a lot of forensic evidence. The Winnipeg
Police Service collected fiber analysis here microscopy, So there was
three hairs that were grasped in Ting Fong Chan's hands.
They had fingerprints, they collected clothing, they undertook presumptive blood tests,
(17:46):
there was a series of knives that were collected, and
essentially they used a number of different you know, and
I used air quote sciences, sciences that have since been
dubbed junk science to these things. But what's amazing about
this case is Brian Anderson, Alan Woodhouse and the other
(18:06):
two co accused were excluded from all of them. So
they engaged in this efforts to try and get something
beyond the confession undertaking these sciences, again air quotes, that
have contributed to a number of wrongful convictions, but in
this instance, remarkably, these four men were excluded.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
So even when they were using these super subjective, absolute
junk sciences that are very useful for when you want
to conjure up corroborating evidence for a false confession or
a misidentification or a jail house snitch testimony, even when
they tried to cheat, they failed, where so many other
unscrupulous prosecutors and law enforcement officials have succeeded time and
(18:50):
time again. So I mean, I'm sure that there are
a number of people in the audience scratching their heads
as I'm doing right now and saying, wait, I thought
she said they were excluded.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
That's the weirdest thing about this case. So in every
other case I've ever worked on, there's something more. You know,
there might be harmark cross that was performed, there may
be fiber analysis that matches. There might be you know,
a smudge, fingerprint, or some kind of presumpted blood. But this,
this is that case that the only thing that ties
(19:27):
these individuals to the case are these confessions they're alleged
to have made. All of the air quotes. Science that
they tried to utilize excluded them, but.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
They marched right ahead as if it included them, right exactly.
It just keeps piling up, right, So we have the
blind witness, right, we have the false confessions that might
as well have been written in Chinese or Greek Portuguese
because you didn't know what the hell you were signing,
And the physical and forensic evidence collected does match. So
(20:01):
it's already the pile of sculpatory evidence and factors is
growing and growing. But also you had an alibi. It
wasn't like you were by yourself that night, right.
Speaker 5 (20:11):
That's right now, staying at my grandfather at the time,
that's where I was. And Clarence and Russell that was
their residence too.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Yes, I was at home and my mother can confirm
that the aster where I was on the guy got killed.
She said I was at home when she got home,
but then she said she was drunk. There's the bars
closed about twelve o'clock. Then she walked from the main
street to Isabel Street. The that's about fifteen minute to
twenty minute walk, so that would be about two o'clock
(20:41):
when I was at home, because she said I was
complaining to her about her becoming home late, because you know,
I had to get up in the morning. Were there,
So I don't I be walking at two o'clock in
the morning and waking me up, And that's how she remembered.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
So you guys both underwent preliminary hearings. Alan you were
discharged November nineteen seventy three after the preliminary hearing based
on the finding that the statement to police was involuntary
and thereby inadmissible and you were discharged, but you were
mentioned in the other statements, and then they were still
able to put you on trial and they had you
(21:17):
bumped up from juvenile court into adult court. It just
keeps getting worse to stand trial along with Brian and
your other two co defendants.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
Right, that's right.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
So now we get to the trial, and you got
George Dangerfield. We talked about the notorious prosecutor. This trial
took place February eighteenth through March fifth. Now, obviously you've
studied it in detail, Bob, and tell us about this trial.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
The only thing here is the confessions the trial. Jidge
actually says that, and I'm going to read you a
quote from his instructions to the jury. The whole case
basically against these accused, each of them, rests on his
own statement, and that sort of summarizes the trial. The
entire length of the trial focused on these statements, and
(22:02):
it was essentially a competition on who was telling the truth.
You know, you had these supposedly upstanding officers that were
presenting this case vouching for the fact that these individuals
had confessed to them. And on the opposite side, you
had four young indigenous men who were sort of villipied.
They didn't speak English, they weren't provided with interpreters, and
(22:26):
essentially it was their word against the police.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
The word of the same police officers who had beaten Allen,
who was a child. They literally beat him to extract
the statement that was then, of course, later presented against
him at trial.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
Oh yeah, well that's the only thing. That's the only
thing they had. I said, Oh yeah, you came out
and you confessed it, of question, that's what the police said.
They didn't stand time with the beating, they unied it.
Of course, even the statement wasn't true. For instance, the
statement said that I had started this person in the
stomach a couple of times, but there was no stab
wounds in the stomach at all.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
It's a classic hallmark of a false confession when the
details of the statement don't match the physical evidence. And
there were also the alibi witnesses. But in reading about
the trial, it really made me sort of throw want
to throw up in my mouth to read that Brian's
grandfather was never even called to testify to his alibi.
(23:24):
It's insane. But then this part I don't know struck
me in a different sort of sickening type of way,
which is that Alan, your mother was called the trial,
which was appropriate, but from what I understand, the jury
didn't hear her full explanation because the judge freaking interrupted
her during a pivotal moment of questioning and then sent
(23:45):
her home without allowing her to answer the question like
what planet are we on? This is madness?
Speaker 2 (23:53):
Yeah, well today, I don't know why the judge was
sort of hostile toward her. Yeah, because you don't understand
what's going on here? Go sit down, Yeah, let's say
and sat down. It seems to me he just didn't
want to hear her say anything. I don't know why.
Maybe he didn't want to hear the truth. He didn't
(24:13):
want to hear any evidence contrary to what they believed.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
I mean, as a parent, I think anyone who's listening,
who is a parent, father, mother, whatever, would feel a
sense of outrage that this is the mother with her
son's life at stake, and the judge is basically treating
her as if her life her son's life.
Speaker 3 (24:35):
No, none of it matters, honestly, Jason, it was the
moment that our read the sentencing decision. I want to
read this passage to you. So these are the comments
of the trial judge. She says, this is not a
jungle where we live. It is not a wild's land.
We are not subduing this land from anybody. We are
(24:55):
not still taking it from wild people in this community.
We want to be able to come and go freely,
whether the lights are on in the streets or whether
they are out, whether the police are patrolling the roads
or whether they aren't. And you know, Jason, extemporaneous comments
about jungles and wildness not only add nothing useful to
(25:17):
the trial process, but they conjure up stereotypes that can
only do unfair damage to indigenous person Standing trial.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
March fifth, nineteen seventy four, Brian Allen and Clarence were
found guilty of murder and sentence to life in prison,
and Russell was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to
ten years. So, Brian and Alan, what was that like
when that fury came in and sends you to prison
for the rest of your life.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Oh, I was shock coming. I was just spitless. It's
sort of I don't I don't get it. I never
thought of killing anyone in my life ever.
Speaker 5 (25:54):
I have to just take what was coming to me
because like a I guess you like a sheep and
a slaughter house or whatever, like you know this, do
whatever they want you have.
Speaker 4 (26:04):
You have nothing.
Speaker 5 (26:20):
Once the door loss behind you, you're in that little
cell by yourself, and then that's all you do, you think.
I didn't know how to take it to begin with
a thing, and I thought, wows just do away with myself,
kill myself.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
And then.
Speaker 5 (26:40):
After thinking about that, I thought, hey, I can't be
doing this. I'll be helping those buckers. That's what they're
trying to do to me, you try to kill me.
Then I promised myself that I would keep going and
I'm still here.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
Yeah. I think it helped me a lot of owned
out totally alone because there was Brian, There's Clarence and Russell,
So yeah, I had some some kind of support.
Speaker 4 (27:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
When I got to personally, I never realized how many
Native people they were there. There's just full of Native
people there was. There was hardly any white people there
at all. It seems I seemed like a big giant reserve.
When I joined the organization. Now in the Native Brotherhood,
I was quite active in prison politics. I was present
for the Brotherhood a few times. And not only that,
(27:31):
I became a Jellhouse lawyers of all things. Yes, so
that kept me occupied. I got pretty good in learn
learning the system. There was a time there I thought, well, now,
I don't know where this idea came from. I thought,
you can serve your time where you can let the
Times review. I think, yeah, I started adopted our philosophy.
Speaker 5 (27:52):
Pick up books or what I would try and distract
your mind. That kind of kept me sane, Like you know,
I didn't. I didn't go insane at all. I went
to school as well, trying to learn something, like you know,
try and educate myself, to try and learn English. At
least I could try and speak for myself because my
lawyer wouldn't speak for me.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
I finished my high school in prison. I took some
courses here, like auto mechanics took I took electrician and
I work as electrician every time I'm out. I thought
schooling would be the best way to get out as
soon as possible as Enforstnately, they didn't turn it that away,
(28:32):
because I spent seventeen years in prison before I got
a full parole.
Speaker 1 (28:38):
That's right, Alan, Despite both of you spending your time
so well behind the walls. As you both just described,
you were not granted parole until nineteen ninety, while Brian
was initially denied parl nineteen eighty because the par Wark
concluded that Brian had a quote unquote obsession to prove
his innocence. I mean, of course, but they said that
(29:01):
that could potentially result in his violating release conditions. Like what, okay,
what are we through the looking glass here? I mean,
you can't win in that situation. An innocent man not
deserving a parole. It's just totally asked backwards. But there
was a man that I read about who was a
fierce advocate for you, Brian. And that guy's name was
(29:22):
Dick Skelding.
Speaker 5 (29:23):
He was a school teacher. And then I asked him
to help me write a letter to my lawyer. He
helped me out and then he says, oh, I'll send
him a letter to He said, after that the lawyer,
I had tried to get him fired because he's trying
to help me. And then he was pissed off at that.
He said there's something going on here. He said, something wrong.
(29:46):
You're like a lawyer like that, he's supposed to be
helping and he's against you. And then he says, would
you take a light detector? He said, so, I said okay,
and then I passed it, of course, and then after
that he contacted the CTV News and then they came
in interviewed me over there.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
Unfortunately, he died in nineteen eighty two, but you carried on,
and as you mentioned, the CTV did its story on
your case, Brian called the Anderson Confession. And you know,
sometimes pressure breaks pipes. So you were ultimately released on
full parole in nineteen eighty three, ten years after your arrest.
But then Alan, you spent seventeen years in prison before
(30:28):
being granted parole on May twenty third, nineteen ninety.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
Well, they wanted me to admit that kill somebody, and
I just couldn't bring miss out to tell you I
got I didn't kill anybody. Finally, I think this sort
of said they weren't going to get me to say
that killed somebody. I think one of the members said,
you know, he said, we can't base our decisi't based
(30:51):
on what you say. We have to base just isn't
based on the fact that you were convicted. Even if
you were in and they granted me a parole I
think in March, and then I said, okay, you can
get on me twenty three, nineteen ninety. So I went
to the halfway house, you know, which is just another prison.
So I stayed there another six months. So sir, it's
a gradual release. You know, you don't just walk over there. Yeah.
(31:14):
There some parole officers ra attitude. You're trying to find
excuses to send you back to prison. The current one
is actually pretty good right now. So it's actually very
good completely the elevance. Oh, I've had really bad parole officers.
I've been suspended a few times. I hardly got out
on habeas corpus. Three times my parole officers revoked my parole.
(31:35):
I had to take him to court to reinstace my parole.
Take me three times, and they finally I told him
that the next time I caught him on hebis corpus,
I will be filing civil suit. So far there left
me alone. But like today, I could be suspended right now.
You know, I can't be in chill tomorrow. That's just
(31:57):
the way it.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Is, Brian. For you for was revolt to suspend it
and regranted numerous time. We've talked about this before, you
and I about sort of the prison outside of the prison, right.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (32:07):
Well, I had such a racist parole officer because of him,
I went back and forth. He told me he was
an ex cop. He was really after me like any
little thing. Even when he used to come visit me.
He put his phone or whatever tape recorder aside. He said, well,
I'm going to turn this off first so it don't
get interrupted, and he's recording me all this time. You know,
(32:31):
I could see that. And then he had said, well,
like you know, what we say and what the courts
say are two different things. Don't bet on it. He
told me, like, you know, like you're going to go back,
like he made a decision already. I was going to
get revoked, revoked my parole. I was glad to get
(32:53):
rid of him. Finally they gave me another one, which
is a woman after that, and then she was nice
to me, and I never then it went back after that.
I'm still with it today. Like you know, I have
I have like a chain, like a lease. I can
only go so far, like as a radius. I can't
go past eighty kilometers from where I'm at I can
(33:15):
get thrown back in jail for that, for being out
of the boundary.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
Yeah, it's all these years later. It's so crazy that
in Canada they do it much the same way we
do here, which is try to make their lives as
difficult as possible after their feed whether they're innocent or guilty.
Of course, if you're declared actually innocent, then they don't
put you on parole here. But I always say we
should build ramps for people coming out of prison so
they can get back on their feet, join their community,
(33:39):
get back with their family, go to school, become contributing
members of society. Instead, we put up roadblocks every place
we can and put ice in the road and nail
so you get tripped up and you go right back
to prison. There's forty four hundred different restrictions in America
on parole and probation, over forty four hundred, some of
(33:59):
them make it virtually impossible for somebody to remain free.
And sad to hear that it's the same way in Canada.
Speaker 5 (34:05):
Exactly, Like you know, like what I didn't like about
this too, is that like somebody come from another part
of the world like you, on the other side of
the world, for example, and come and tell me how
to live my life in my own country. You know
that pisces me off try to control my life, still
(34:25):
do I don't like that?
Speaker 4 (34:28):
I should be free?
Speaker 1 (34:46):
So they have yet to declare you both actually listen,
all these decades later, while they continue to keep their
hooks into you, and as time has passed, the fight
to clear your names has remained constant, but the process
is maddeningly slow. In fact, the presence of Bob and
with us today starts a while back with a legend
(35:07):
in the innocence community who has since then passed.
Speaker 5 (35:11):
Hurricane Carter's name came up. I was told to contact
Hurricane Carter. They were called Aidwick. Now they're called Innocence Canada.
I didn't know anything about Innocence Canada. There was the
four cases that came up, people that were convicted from
George Landerfield. Their cases were looked after. They've been dealt
with already, and I believe my case was ahead of them,
(35:37):
but I haven't been looked at it all.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
So, Bobin, when did you and Jerome Kennedy get involved
and take us right up to the present to where
the case is at right now?
Speaker 3 (35:47):
Jerome and I became involved in twenty seventeen, and that
was when Innocence Canada was going under a bit of
a shift. So what Jerome Kennedy did was review every
single file that was on our roster and evaluate it.
I think it was days into me starting my role
as legal director, we started working on this case and
(36:09):
so almost instantly, over the course of the next maybe
year year and a half, we were pouring over every document,
calling every institution, trying to put together this file and
figure out a way in because I think the struggle
in this case was they were so obviously innocent. The
(36:31):
only thing here was the confession, and we just couldn't
figure out why it was they were convicted. And so
we submitted Brian's case at the beginning of twenty nineteen
to an organization known as the CCRG, So that's the
Criminal Convictions Review Group and essentially that is the sub
department of our Ministry of Justice. And in Canada, what
(36:55):
this process involves is us filing what is known as
a Section ninety six point one application, and the Ministry
on their website provides you about three pages in order
to be able to make a person's claim of innocence.
But ultimately Brian and Allen's combined applications ended up being
three hundred pages of us noting everything we had found,
(37:19):
and was accompanied by I think almost five or six
banker's boxes of evidence we had collected over the years
what had initially only started off with the four confessions.
So presently Brian's was filed in twenty nineteen. The CCRG
actually approached us and asked us to file Allen's in
twenty twenty, and so we filed his application in February,
(37:43):
sort of as a supplement to the two. And now
it's still before the CCRG being considered and it's a
long process. We've been waiting for a while and we're
really hoping that the Minister makes a decision soon.
Speaker 1 (37:57):
Yeah. It really just pisses me off how easy it
is to throw a few good men's lives away, but
then to of course to undo that dirty work, is it?
You know, Well, now we know it's a fifty year
uphill struggle with Baker's boxes of material that takes years
(38:18):
to a mass and of course many more years to
get in front of anybody who's in a position to
do anything about it.
Speaker 3 (38:25):
That's the thing about wrongful convictions. It is so easy
to convict someone and here we are fifty years later,
still trying to undo it. You know, I started on
it twenty seventeen. It is now twenty twenty two, just
to get an idea of how long this process takes.
And I am just on the tail end of Alan
(38:47):
and Brian's efforts to sort of undo what happened to them.
Speaker 1 (38:52):
And if any of our listeners want to support your efforts,
is there a website that can go to.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
So the ask for us is supporting organizations like an
Since Canada, we have so little resources, and to Brian's point,
it takes us years to even get to the point
that we have enough resources to be able to review
and evaluate a case. And in the absence of us
doing so, there is no one else. There is no
(39:17):
one else that is doing this work. And so people
like Brian are forced to wait in the queue until
we have enough resources ability to reach that file. And
this is a human being that is waiting for us,
that is waiting for us to review their case. And
so all I'd ask, you know, the pitch to the
audience would be to support your local wrongful conviction organization.
(39:39):
Make sure that you're able to contribute to them in
that way. And when there are policy matters that are
coming up or opportunities to support, please do, please.
Speaker 1 (39:49):
Do, amen, So keep your ear to the ground. People
support your local innocence organizations as well as larger ones
like Innocence Canada. I mean the money go a long
way with Innocence Canada, believe me, and we'll have their
site linked in the bio. So now we come, of course,
to my favorite part of the show. Closing Arguments is
(40:10):
the section of the show where first of all, I
thank you all of you for being here and sharing
this unreal story. I'm gonna turn my microphone off, kick
back in my chair with my headphones on, if I
close my eyes and just zone in on whatever else
you want to share. Bobin, please start us off, and
then I'll leave it up to you to hand the
(40:30):
mic off to whoever you want to have go next,
and then the other guy will take us off into
the sunset.
Speaker 3 (40:37):
The only thing I will say is, for almost fifty years,
Brian and Alan have maintained their innocence. They have spent
the majority of their life marked as murderers, and yet
every day, both of them wake up, continue to fight
to clear their name. And you know, as Jason mentioned
in one of the parole reports that I read, they
(40:58):
talk about Brian's session with his innocence, and in both
Brian and Allen's case, their obsession with proving their innocence
has never wavered. Their story is one of enduring strength, determination,
and perseverance.
Speaker 5 (41:14):
Yes, well, I got to keep crying. I can't give up.
I need but I need help. I there's nothing I can.
Speaker 4 (41:21):
Do by myself.
Speaker 5 (41:24):
Whoever's out there we can help, will even better.
Speaker 4 (41:28):
That's what I need.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
Oh, thank you very much for having me here. There
was a great privilege to be here. I would like
the audience and all that. You know, we always think
about justice, but justice has to come soon. I can't
just steal happen and then nothing, nothing happens. So we
(41:50):
have to make a decision. This review has to come
to an end at some point. I just wish they'd
make a decision quickly because just think also are stressful,
the fact that this is hanging over you. Well, when
am I getting out? You know why? Am I getting out?
Day in and day out? You know it? Just where's
the oat? Psychologically dreaming. Please be aware of that there's
(42:13):
a lot of injustice in this world, and it's people,
and we always think it'll never happen to me, but
it does happen. I certainly never told you what happened
to me.
Speaker 1 (42:30):
Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to
thank our production team Connor Hall, Jeff Cliburn, and Kevin Wardis,
with research by Lyla Robinson. The music in this production
was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph.
Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction,
on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction podcast, and on Twitter at
(42:52):
wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava for Good. On
all three platforms, you can also follow me on both
TikTok and Instagram at It's Jason Flahm. Ravel Conviction is
the production of Lava for Good Podcasts and association with
Signal Company Number one
On Tuesday, July seventeenth, nineteen seventy three, a local chef
and father of two, Ting Fong Chan, walked home from
his night shift in Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada at around six am.
His body was found beaten and stabbed death near a
construction site. An eyewitness saw the assailants through the darkness
and described the group as four or five men with
(00:23):
long hair. The police asked if the assailants may have
been indigenous. The eyewitness couldn't say either way without a
definitive answer, investigators began campassing the local indigenous population, and
a man named Adam Woodhouse told them about a recent
gathering at his home attended by Clarence and Russell Woodhouse
as well as their cousin Brian Anderson. However, this gathering
(00:43):
happened on Thursday night, not on Monday into Tuesday, the
night of the crime. Despite the confusion over the date,
as well as the uncertainty over the assailants ethnicity, Clarence
and Russell Woodhouse, Brian Anderson, as well as their younger
friend Allan Woodhouse underwent a series of coercive and in
some cases, violent interrogations, resulting in four false confessions written
(01:06):
in a language in which none of them were entirely fluent.
The trial consisted of the presentation of these alleged confessions
against four matching recantations, as well as alibi witnesses and
accusations of police misconduct and brutality. Fifty years later, Brian
Anderson and Alan Woodhouse share their harrowing story and the
(01:28):
struggle to clear their names. This is wrongful Conviction. Welcome
back to wrongful Conviction. This is an episode it's going
(01:50):
to take everyone who listens on a journey, not just
far away because this took place in the Great White North,
but also to a place of disbelief for how the system,
in this case, the system in Canada, can do what
it does to innocent civilians. Let me introduce our guests
and then we'll explain more about the case. With us,
(02:11):
we have two wrongfully convicted men. First of all, Brian Anderson,
Welcome to wrongful Conviction. I'm sorry you're here under the services,
but I'm happy you're here. Thank you and with us
as well as Alan Woodhouse. So grateful for you being
here as well.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Thank you very much for having me here today.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
And joining us. Is an incredible woman named bob and Sody.
Bobbin is the attorney of record for these men. She
was the legal director at Innocence Canada at the time
that she got involved with this case, and she's currently
got one of the most amazing and interesting jobs, I
think in the entire world of criminal justice. She is
the intake director at the Innocence Project of New York.
(02:52):
So Bobin, Welcome to Wrongful Conviction.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
Thanks so much for having us, Jason.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
So.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Bobn I almost feel like I want to let you
set the stage here. I mean, this case is so nuts.
It involves lies from people in positions of power, false confessions.
At least one of the men didn't even speak the
language of the confession that he was signing, that he
didn't even know was a confession, Jason.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
For me, this was one of the first cases I
worked on in my role as legal director at Innocence Canada,
and it's one of those cases that right off the
batch you know that something isn't right.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
You know.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
My co counsel, Jerome Kennedy has always put it best.
We started off knowing that this was a nineteen seventy
three case. It involved the Winnipeg Police service, four young
Indigenous men and George Dangerfield. And as far as innocence
Canada was concerned, that is a recipe for wrongful conviction.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
And George Dangerfield just what a name for a guy
who has the dubious distinction of being the Crown prosecutor
who is responsible for the most wrongful convictions in Canadian history.
And he was unfortunately the top prosecutor in Manitoba, Canada
for thirty years. And just to paint a picture of
the guys who ended up getting caught in this nightmare,
(04:10):
Brian Anderson, who's with us today at seventh grade education
and no knowledge of the criminal legal system. He grew
up on the Fairford Indian Reserve between Lake Manitoba and
Lake Saint Mark, about two hundred and thirty kilometers or
one hundred and forty three miles north of Winnipeg. The
eldest had ten children. At eighteen, he moved to Winnipeg
to work and live with his grandparents. And his first
language was not English. He barely spoke English at all.
(04:32):
His first language was Ojibwe Salto. And he had no
criminal record whatsoever. This is important, that's important to know.
But it turned out not to matter in this case.
So Brian, tell me about your life growing up. Did
you have a happy childhood? Yes?
Speaker 4 (04:45):
I did? I think I did.
Speaker 5 (04:49):
You don't know anything about life at that age.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
So right, you're a kid, I mean, let's face it.
As a teenager you just said yeah, exactly, figuring it
out just like anybody else. And Alan, what about for you?
You lived on the Fairport Indian Reserve as well, with
English as a second language. You had a ninth grade
education there. You were seventeen years old, but also with
no criminal record, and moved to Winnipeg two months before
(05:14):
this awful crime happened. So Alan, what was your life
like growing up in those times?
Speaker 2 (05:19):
From what you can remember, Well, my childhost is pretty rugged,
so to speak, of eight brothers and two sisters, as
I was a lot of people. Brian's younger brother I
have and I used to be my handout buddy. We're
up at the same age. Ban were a bit of wolder,
so he hung out with you a wolder crowd. The
only reason I was in Winnipeg is because to look
for work. There's no work in a reserve, of course,
(05:41):
because I was over sixteen, so I just moved to
Winnipeg about a couple of months when I got arrested.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
Right and before you were arrested, the police picked up
Clarence Woodhouse, followed by Russell Woodhouse, then you Alan Woodhouse,
and lastly Brian Anderson. And the whole thing started with
a statement from Woodhouse. First of all, that's a lot
of woodhouses. So just to keep things straight for our audience.
From what I gather, Woodhouse must be a common name, Brian,
Are any of you guys related?
Speaker 5 (06:11):
Yes, I am. They are my cousins, which is the Woodhouses.
Clarence and Russell, we had the same grandfather. We knew
each other right from the little kids.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
I'm not related to idiotom actually not even Adam Mudos.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
So Clarence and Russell were related to you, Brian. But
Adam and Allen aren't related to any of you guys, right, yes,
so the crime itself. July seventeenth, nineteen seventy three, forty
zho men in ting Pong Chan was beaten and stabbed
to death near a downtown construction site in Manitoba, which
is Winnipeg. Mister Chan was a father of two and
a chef at a restaurant called The Beachcomber. He was
(06:46):
walking home from the night shift and his body was
found at six am on the seventeenth. So then comes
this ridiculous quote unquote investigation.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
For the first couple of days after Chan's body was found,
no investigation occurred. Essentially, they were doing a scan of
the neighborhood and they came across a witness named Daisy
Towel and Daisy, what's interesting about her is she didn't
really see much at all. What she claims to have
seen under the light of a lamppost in the middle
(07:20):
of the night without her glasses, and she indicated that
she had very poor vision was the outline of four
or five individuals that had long hair, And when the
officers put it to her whether she thought they were indigenous,
she said, well, yes, they could be. And you know,
the important point here is this was the seventies, and
(07:40):
so I'm presuming a lot of people had long hair.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
I have fond memories of that era. I mean, long hair,
great music, and this witness could have easily and vaguely
stuck me into this group as well. I mean I
fit that much at the description. That's the only description
they had. So it's important to note that the police
offered this blurry cited eyewitness the suggestion that the assailants
were Indigenous, not the other way around. And Alan, I
(08:06):
know you eventually became a jail house lawyer. Does it
strike you as business as usual for the police in
that era with in doubt, just take an indigenous guy, right,
just start targeting Indigenous people.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
Oh yeah, I mean I think goes wrong right away.
It's Native people even in the reserve. You know, something
happened outside the reserves. There's better community out there, right
there's there's been Native people. There'd be police driving around
looking for so and sorry though, that's the reality of it.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
Unfortunately, the police ended up canvassing the neighborhood on the
lookout essentially for young Indigenous men. And that's how a
few days later they came upon Adam Woodhouse's house and
spoke to him. They also spoke to his common law
partner and his common law partner's daughter. And what I
(08:54):
will say is English wasn't even the first language of
these witnesses. So Adam was also someone who was struggling
to understand this context, wasn't provided an interpreter, and was
participating and so when they spoke to Adam on July
twenty second, he said, well, yes, on the night of
the murderer, I had a group of young Indigenous men
(09:15):
with me, including Brian Anderson, Clarence Woodhouse and Russell Woodhouse.
And he distinctly didn't mention Alan. And what's interesting about
the fact that he said that is almost immediately following
his common law partner and his common law partner's daughter
said yes, these young men were at our house, but
that actually occurred Thursday and not on the night in question.
(09:40):
And the reason that's interesting is a lot of the
information that Adam was recalling from the evening actually related
to things that happened on Thursday. So, for example, he
referenced receiving his check he usually receives that on a
Thursday night. He referenced using that check in order to
buy beer again as a result of what happened on
(10:00):
Thursday night. But essentially, the police, ignoring what you know
his common law partner and her daughter said, decided to
venture out. And this is when this web began to weave,
and within twenty four hours they managed to get you
alleged confessions from Clarence Woodhouse, Russell Woodhouse, Allan Woodhouse and
(10:23):
Brian Anderson.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
Wow, so no, I mean they didn't even pretend to
do a real investigation, just the assumption by the police
that the assailants were indigenous. And Adam Woodhouse told them
about gathering at his home with Clarence Russell and Brian,
nothing about a murder or any conspiracy to commit murder
or any criminal activity at all. And it even turned
(10:46):
out to be the wrong night entirely. Monday into Tuesday
was when it happened. This was Thursday, but that didn't matter.
And now the interrogations and false confessions began in a
language you guys didn't even.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
Under I think a really important part of this is
understanding the sequence of the confessions, just to understand how
they utilized classic red technique despite the fact that everything
pointed against them. So yes, all four confessions, and this
is important, all four of the confessions that these boys
are alleged to have made start off with the exact
(11:22):
same sentence. All four of them say, on Monday night,
I was and when I read that, I knew that
something was amiss. We have four men who are alleged
to have written these confessions in separate rooms, separate circumstances,
varying understanding of English, and yet all of their statements
start the exact same way. And so that's when I
(11:46):
delved into the actual sequence, like how did they obtain them?
And what I saw was classic retechnique.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
You know.
Speaker 3 (11:53):
They started off with Clarence. They took him to the scene,
brought him back to the station, They asked him to
mark up the body and where it was that he
had attacked, you know, ting fong Chen, immediately assuming that
he was the person responsible. Ultimately, this allegedly led to
his confession. And what's interesting about the confession is it's
(12:14):
a partial confession and the only person that's mentioned in
it is Russell. Then they go to Russell and they
go look at this confession that Clarence gave you. And
what's interesting about that is that Russell didn't even have
enough of an understanding of the English language to be
able to read the confession that Clarence apparently made. So
(12:36):
they brought Clarence into the room with Russell to read
to his brother this confession he's alleged to have made.
And so Russell apparently makes the confession same thing on
Monday night, I was, and so not only does he
now mention Clarence himself, but he also references Alan, and
so that is how Alan is brought into the story,
(12:58):
and so then Alan is arrested. He is also shown
the confession that now Clarence has made and subsequently Russell
have made. And what's interesting about Alan is he was
subjected to physical abuse because he refused to make this confession.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
That night, in that particular, when I got picked up,
you know, there was a knock on the door, and
there's two people standing there in suits. I guess you
call them planes closed.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
Now.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
He asked me what my name was, So I told
them who I was. So I said, sorry, grand them
my wrist. You're the one we're looking for it. So
I said, way wait, I said, what's going on? I
want to talk to you. I went downstairs with and
Mark carr on downstairs and they took me to the
police station. We were the police. I asked him what
its this about it? He said murder? I said murder.
I said, maybe they had found a dead body and
(13:45):
they wanted me to go and recognize some of the
body or see what I mean. When we got to
the police station and they said Okay, where were you
on Tuesday night? So I tood, not hoom. Who else
was there? There's nobody there. It's just me. My mother
and I lived there, just had that little apartment, and
my mother well she went out a lot, she drank
a lot. But anyway, so I told him I was
(14:06):
at home and they said, oh, there's nobody there, said,
I know, you weren't there. You were at Adams Woodha Streets.
I said, no, I wasn't there. I was there on Thursday. Yeah.
They went back and forth for a while and they
got angrier and angrier, and they started getting physical. I
mean they were really rough. I mean they were they're
hitting me. I mean, I was all bloody. So after
(14:26):
four hours they rode up the statement, told me to
sign it and then you can go, said, So I
signed it, I said, After they signed, their hand covered
me ultimately.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
Again. Interesting, his confession starts off with on Monday night
I was and the variation there was. Now this confession
includes Clarence, it includes Russell, it includes Alan, and there
is the first reference to Brian Anderson. And so then
they go to Brian and they speak to him, and
they take Brian to the scene. They show him alleged
(15:00):
weapons that were utilized, you know, and they show him
the confessions of the other three points. Like on Monday night, I.
Speaker 5 (15:08):
Was on the twenty third, I got picked up for murder.
Like I wasn't even a suspect. I was charged already.
They got me to sign a piece of paper, which
I did, and I didn't know that was the confession
that supposedly I had made.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
The idea that you were signing a piece of paper
in a language you didn't speak with nobody there to
guide you or help you or advise you. I read
somewhere that you had thought that it might have been
just something related to your possessions that they were keeping
on storage for you while they arrested you. Is that accurate.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
Yes.
Speaker 5 (15:42):
What they do is they make you empty your pockets
and that they put stuff aside and you have to
sign for them. And that's what I thought it was.
That's how crooked they were, you know, they didn't care
just because they had these witnesses they were calling them.
That's where they based all this stuff from.
Speaker 3 (16:01):
And so at the end of the day, as a
result of this sort of linear sequential experience, now all
four boys are alleged to have participated. The statements that
start very much the same build on each other. So
first you have just Clarence, then you have Clarence and Russell,
then you have Clarence Russell and Alan, and finally the
(16:23):
final statement Clarence Russell, Alan and Brian have participated. And
so essentially you have each of the young men pointing
the finger at each other and weaving this web for the.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
Police actually feels a little bit like a Canadian version
of New York City's own horror show known as The
Central Park Five, currently known as Exonerated five because they
use some of the same techniques differently, but you know,
(16:55):
using everybody against each other and the physical abuse. And
it's very important for our audience to know that in
twenty nine percent of the DNA exonerations, the person who
was proven with absolute certainty scientific certainty to be innocent
confessed to the crime they didn't commit. Just like in
this case, Bobin, what about physical or forensic evidence? Did
(17:17):
they collect any, did they examine it? Was there any?
Did they even make a show out of trying to
solve this case?
Speaker 3 (17:23):
So that is where this case gets interesting, Jason. They
actually did collect a lot of forensic evidence. The Winnipeg
Police Service collected fiber analysis here microscopy, So there was
three hairs that were grasped in Ting Fong Chan's hands.
They had fingerprints, they collected clothing, they undertook presumptive blood tests,
(17:46):
there was a series of knives that were collected, and
essentially they used a number of different you know, and
I used air quote sciences, sciences that have since been
dubbed junk science to these things. But what's amazing about
this case is Brian Anderson, Alan Woodhouse and the other
(18:06):
two co accused were excluded from all of them. So
they engaged in this efforts to try and get something
beyond the confession undertaking these sciences, again air quotes, that
have contributed to a number of wrongful convictions, but in
this instance, remarkably, these four men were excluded.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
So even when they were using these super subjective, absolute
junk sciences that are very useful for when you want
to conjure up corroborating evidence for a false confession or
a misidentification or a jail house snitch testimony, even when
they tried to cheat, they failed, where so many other
unscrupulous prosecutors and law enforcement officials have succeeded time and
(18:50):
time again. So I mean, I'm sure that there are
a number of people in the audience scratching their heads
as I'm doing right now and saying, wait, I thought
she said they were excluded.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
That's the weirdest thing about this case. So in every
other case I've ever worked on, there's something more. You know,
there might be harmark cross that was performed, there may
be fiber analysis that matches. There might be you know,
a smudge, fingerprint, or some kind of presumpted blood. But this,
this is that case that the only thing that ties
(19:27):
these individuals to the case are these confessions they're alleged
to have made. All of the air quotes. Science that
they tried to utilize excluded them, but.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
They marched right ahead as if it included them, right exactly.
It just keeps piling up, right, So we have the
blind witness, right, we have the false confessions that might
as well have been written in Chinese or Greek Portuguese
because you didn't know what the hell you were signing,
And the physical and forensic evidence collected does match. So
(20:01):
it's already the pile of sculpatory evidence and factors is
growing and growing. But also you had an alibi. It
wasn't like you were by yourself that night, right.
Speaker 5 (20:11):
That's right now, staying at my grandfather at the time,
that's where I was. And Clarence and Russell that was
their residence too.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Yes, I was at home and my mother can confirm
that the aster where I was on the guy got killed.
She said I was at home when she got home,
but then she said she was drunk. There's the bars
closed about twelve o'clock. Then she walked from the main
street to Isabel Street. The that's about fifteen minute to
twenty minute walk, so that would be about two o'clock
(20:41):
when I was at home, because she said I was
complaining to her about her becoming home late, because you know,
I had to get up in the morning. Were there,
So I don't I be walking at two o'clock in
the morning and waking me up, And that's how she remembered.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
So you guys both underwent preliminary hearings. Alan you were
discharged November nineteen seventy three after the preliminary hearing based
on the finding that the statement to police was involuntary
and thereby inadmissible and you were discharged, but you were
mentioned in the other statements, and then they were still
able to put you on trial and they had you
(21:17):
bumped up from juvenile court into adult court. It just
keeps getting worse to stand trial along with Brian and
your other two co defendants.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
Right, that's right.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
So now we get to the trial, and you got
George Dangerfield. We talked about the notorious prosecutor. This trial
took place February eighteenth through March fifth. Now, obviously you've
studied it in detail, Bob, and tell us about this trial.
Speaker 3 (21:41):
The only thing here is the confessions the trial. Jidge
actually says that, and I'm going to read you a
quote from his instructions to the jury. The whole case
basically against these accused, each of them, rests on his
own statement, and that sort of summarizes the trial. The
entire length of the trial focused on these statements, and
(22:02):
it was essentially a competition on who was telling the truth.
You know, you had these supposedly upstanding officers that were
presenting this case vouching for the fact that these individuals
had confessed to them. And on the opposite side, you
had four young indigenous men who were sort of villipied.
They didn't speak English, they weren't provided with interpreters, and
(22:26):
essentially it was their word against the police.
Speaker 1 (22:29):
The word of the same police officers who had beaten Allen,
who was a child. They literally beat him to extract
the statement that was then, of course, later presented against
him at trial.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
Oh yeah, well that's the only thing. That's the only
thing they had. I said, Oh yeah, you came out
and you confessed it, of question, that's what the police said.
They didn't stand time with the beating, they unied it.
Of course, even the statement wasn't true. For instance, the
statement said that I had started this person in the
stomach a couple of times, but there was no stab
wounds in the stomach at all.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
It's a classic hallmark of a false confession when the
details of the statement don't match the physical evidence. And
there were also the alibi witnesses. But in reading about
the trial, it really made me sort of throw want
to throw up in my mouth to read that Brian's
grandfather was never even called to testify to his alibi.
(23:24):
It's insane. But then this part I don't know struck
me in a different sort of sickening type of way,
which is that Alan, your mother was called the trial,
which was appropriate, but from what I understand, the jury
didn't hear her full explanation because the judge freaking interrupted
her during a pivotal moment of questioning and then sent
(23:45):
her home without allowing her to answer the question like
what planet are we on? This is madness?
Speaker 2 (23:53):
Yeah, well today, I don't know why the judge was
sort of hostile toward her. Yeah, because you don't understand
what's going on here? Go sit down, Yeah, let's say
and sat down. It seems to me he just didn't
want to hear her say anything. I don't know why.
Maybe he didn't want to hear the truth. He didn't
(24:13):
want to hear any evidence contrary to what they believed.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
I mean, as a parent, I think anyone who's listening,
who is a parent, father, mother, whatever, would feel a
sense of outrage that this is the mother with her
son's life at stake, and the judge is basically treating
her as if her life her son's life.
Speaker 3 (24:35):
No, none of it matters, honestly, Jason, it was the
moment that our read the sentencing decision. I want to
read this passage to you. So these are the comments
of the trial judge. She says, this is not a
jungle where we live. It is not a wild's land.
We are not subduing this land from anybody. We are
(24:55):
not still taking it from wild people in this community.
We want to be able to come and go freely,
whether the lights are on in the streets or whether
they are out, whether the police are patrolling the roads
or whether they aren't. And you know, Jason, extemporaneous comments
about jungles and wildness not only add nothing useful to
(25:17):
the trial process, but they conjure up stereotypes that can
only do unfair damage to indigenous person Standing trial.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
March fifth, nineteen seventy four, Brian Allen and Clarence were
found guilty of murder and sentence to life in prison,
and Russell was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to
ten years. So, Brian and Alan, what was that like
when that fury came in and sends you to prison
for the rest of your life.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
Oh, I was shock coming. I was just spitless. It's
sort of I don't I don't get it. I never
thought of killing anyone in my life ever.
Speaker 5 (25:54):
I have to just take what was coming to me
because like a I guess you like a sheep and
a slaughter house or whatever, like you know this, do
whatever they want you have.
Speaker 4 (26:04):
You have nothing.
Speaker 5 (26:20):
Once the door loss behind you, you're in that little
cell by yourself, and then that's all you do, you think.
I didn't know how to take it to begin with
a thing, and I thought, wows just do away with myself,
kill myself.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
And then.
Speaker 5 (26:40):
After thinking about that, I thought, hey, I can't be
doing this. I'll be helping those buckers. That's what they're
trying to do to me, you try to kill me.
Then I promised myself that I would keep going and
I'm still here.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
Yeah. I think it helped me a lot of owned
out totally alone because there was Brian, There's Clarence and Russell,
So yeah, I had some some kind of support.
Speaker 4 (27:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
When I got to personally, I never realized how many
Native people they were there. There's just full of Native
people there was. There was hardly any white people there
at all. It seems I seemed like a big giant reserve.
When I joined the organization. Now in the Native Brotherhood,
I was quite active in prison politics. I was present
for the Brotherhood a few times. And not only that,
(27:31):
I became a Jellhouse lawyers of all things. Yes, so
that kept me occupied. I got pretty good in learn
learning the system. There was a time there I thought, well, now,
I don't know where this idea came from. I thought,
you can serve your time where you can let the
Times review. I think, yeah, I started adopted our philosophy.
Speaker 5 (27:52):
Pick up books or what I would try and distract
your mind. That kind of kept me sane, Like you know,
I didn't. I didn't go insane at all. I went
to school as well, trying to learn something, like you know,
try and educate myself, to try and learn English. At
least I could try and speak for myself because my
lawyer wouldn't speak for me.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
I finished my high school in prison. I took some
courses here, like auto mechanics took I took electrician and
I work as electrician every time I'm out. I thought
schooling would be the best way to get out as
soon as possible as Enforstnately, they didn't turn it that away,
(28:32):
because I spent seventeen years in prison before I got
a full parole.
Speaker 1 (28:38):
That's right, Alan, Despite both of you spending your time
so well behind the walls. As you both just described,
you were not granted parole until nineteen ninety, while Brian
was initially denied parl nineteen eighty because the par Wark
concluded that Brian had a quote unquote obsession to prove
his innocence. I mean, of course, but they said that
(29:01):
that could potentially result in his violating release conditions. Like what, okay,
what are we through the looking glass here? I mean,
you can't win in that situation. An innocent man not
deserving a parole. It's just totally asked backwards. But there
was a man that I read about who was a
fierce advocate for you, Brian. And that guy's name was
(29:22):
Dick Skelding.
Speaker 5 (29:23):
He was a school teacher. And then I asked him
to help me write a letter to my lawyer. He
helped me out and then he says, oh, I'll send
him a letter to He said, after that the lawyer,
I had tried to get him fired because he's trying
to help me. And then he was pissed off at that.
He said there's something going on here. He said, something wrong.
(29:46):
You're like a lawyer like that, he's supposed to be
helping and he's against you. And then he says, would
you take a light detector? He said, so, I said okay,
and then I passed it, of course, and then after
that he contacted the CTV News and then they came
in interviewed me over there.
Speaker 1 (30:06):
Unfortunately, he died in nineteen eighty two, but you carried on,
and as you mentioned, the CTV did its story on
your case, Brian called the Anderson Confession. And you know,
sometimes pressure breaks pipes. So you were ultimately released on
full parole in nineteen eighty three, ten years after your arrest.
But then Alan, you spent seventeen years in prison before
(30:28):
being granted parole on May twenty third, nineteen ninety.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
Well, they wanted me to admit that kill somebody, and
I just couldn't bring miss out to tell you I
got I didn't kill anybody. Finally, I think this sort
of said they weren't going to get me to say
that killed somebody. I think one of the members said,
you know, he said, we can't base our decisi't based
(30:51):
on what you say. We have to base just isn't
based on the fact that you were convicted. Even if
you were in and they granted me a parole I
think in March, and then I said, okay, you can
get on me twenty three, nineteen ninety. So I went
to the halfway house, you know, which is just another prison.
So I stayed there another six months. So sir, it's
a gradual release. You know, you don't just walk over there. Yeah.
(31:14):
There some parole officers ra attitude. You're trying to find
excuses to send you back to prison. The current one
is actually pretty good right now. So it's actually very
good completely the elevance. Oh, I've had really bad parole officers.
I've been suspended a few times. I hardly got out
on habeas corpus. Three times my parole officers revoked my parole.
(31:35):
I had to take him to court to reinstace my parole.
Take me three times, and they finally I told him
that the next time I caught him on hebis corpus,
I will be filing civil suit. So far there left
me alone. But like today, I could be suspended right now.
You know, I can't be in chill tomorrow. That's just
(31:57):
the way it.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Is, Brian. For you for was revolt to suspend it
and regranted numerous time. We've talked about this before, you
and I about sort of the prison outside of the prison, right.
Speaker 2 (32:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (32:07):
Well, I had such a racist parole officer because of him,
I went back and forth. He told me he was
an ex cop. He was really after me like any
little thing. Even when he used to come visit me.
He put his phone or whatever tape recorder aside. He said, well,
I'm going to turn this off first so it don't
get interrupted, and he's recording me all this time. You know,
(32:31):
I could see that. And then he had said, well,
like you know, what we say and what the courts
say are two different things. Don't bet on it. He
told me, like, you know, like you're going to go back,
like he made a decision already. I was going to
get revoked, revoked my parole. I was glad to get
(32:53):
rid of him. Finally they gave me another one, which
is a woman after that, and then she was nice
to me, and I never then it went back after that.
I'm still with it today. Like you know, I have
I have like a chain, like a lease. I can
only go so far, like as a radius. I can't
go past eighty kilometers from where I'm at I can
(33:15):
get thrown back in jail for that, for being out
of the boundary.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
Yeah, it's all these years later. It's so crazy that
in Canada they do it much the same way we
do here, which is try to make their lives as
difficult as possible after their feed whether they're innocent or guilty.
Of course, if you're declared actually innocent, then they don't
put you on parole here. But I always say we
should build ramps for people coming out of prison so
they can get back on their feet, join their community,
(33:39):
get back with their family, go to school, become contributing
members of society. Instead, we put up roadblocks every place
we can and put ice in the road and nail
so you get tripped up and you go right back
to prison. There's forty four hundred different restrictions in America
on parole and probation, over forty four hundred, some of
(33:59):
them make it virtually impossible for somebody to remain free.
And sad to hear that it's the same way in Canada.
Speaker 5 (34:05):
Exactly, Like you know, like what I didn't like about
this too, is that like somebody come from another part
of the world like you, on the other side of
the world, for example, and come and tell me how
to live my life in my own country. You know
that pisces me off try to control my life, still
(34:25):
do I don't like that?
Speaker 4 (34:28):
I should be free?
Speaker 1 (34:46):
So they have yet to declare you both actually listen,
all these decades later, while they continue to keep their
hooks into you, and as time has passed, the fight
to clear your names has remained constant, but the process
is maddeningly slow. In fact, the presence of Bob and
with us today starts a while back with a legend
(35:07):
in the innocence community who has since then passed.
Speaker 5 (35:11):
Hurricane Carter's name came up. I was told to contact
Hurricane Carter. They were called Aidwick. Now they're called Innocence Canada.
I didn't know anything about Innocence Canada. There was the
four cases that came up, people that were convicted from
George Landerfield. Their cases were looked after. They've been dealt
with already, and I believe my case was ahead of them,
(35:37):
but I haven't been looked at it all.
Speaker 1 (35:40):
So, Bobin, when did you and Jerome Kennedy get involved
and take us right up to the present to where
the case is at right now?
Speaker 3 (35:47):
Jerome and I became involved in twenty seventeen, and that
was when Innocence Canada was going under a bit of
a shift. So what Jerome Kennedy did was review every
single file that was on our roster and evaluate it.
I think it was days into me starting my role
as legal director, we started working on this case and
(36:09):
so almost instantly, over the course of the next maybe
year year and a half, we were pouring over every document,
calling every institution, trying to put together this file and
figure out a way in because I think the struggle
in this case was they were so obviously innocent. The
(36:31):
only thing here was the confession, and we just couldn't
figure out why it was they were convicted. And so
we submitted Brian's case at the beginning of twenty nineteen
to an organization known as the CCRG, So that's the
Criminal Convictions Review Group and essentially that is the sub
department of our Ministry of Justice. And in Canada, what
(36:55):
this process involves is us filing what is known as
a Section ninety six point one application, and the Ministry
on their website provides you about three pages in order
to be able to make a person's claim of innocence.
But ultimately Brian and Allen's combined applications ended up being
three hundred pages of us noting everything we had found,
(37:19):
and was accompanied by I think almost five or six
banker's boxes of evidence we had collected over the years
what had initially only started off with the four confessions.
So presently Brian's was filed in twenty nineteen. The CCRG
actually approached us and asked us to file Allen's in
twenty twenty, and so we filed his application in February,
(37:43):
sort of as a supplement to the two. And now
it's still before the CCRG being considered and it's a
long process. We've been waiting for a while and we're
really hoping that the Minister makes a decision soon.
Speaker 1 (37:57):
Yeah. It really just pisses me off how easy it
is to throw a few good men's lives away, but
then to of course to undo that dirty work, is it?
You know, Well, now we know it's a fifty year
uphill struggle with Baker's boxes of material that takes years
(38:18):
to a mass and of course many more years to
get in front of anybody who's in a position to
do anything about it.
Speaker 3 (38:25):
That's the thing about wrongful convictions. It is so easy
to convict someone and here we are fifty years later,
still trying to undo it. You know, I started on
it twenty seventeen. It is now twenty twenty two, just
to get an idea of how long this process takes.
And I am just on the tail end of Alan
(38:47):
and Brian's efforts to sort of undo what happened to them.
Speaker 1 (38:52):
And if any of our listeners want to support your efforts,
is there a website that can go to.
Speaker 3 (38:56):
So the ask for us is supporting organizations like an
Since Canada, we have so little resources, and to Brian's point,
it takes us years to even get to the point
that we have enough resources to be able to review
and evaluate a case. And in the absence of us
doing so, there is no one else. There is no
(39:17):
one else that is doing this work. And so people
like Brian are forced to wait in the queue until
we have enough resources ability to reach that file. And
this is a human being that is waiting for us,
that is waiting for us to review their case. And
so all I'd ask, you know, the pitch to the
audience would be to support your local wrongful conviction organization.
(39:39):
Make sure that you're able to contribute to them in
that way. And when there are policy matters that are
coming up or opportunities to support, please do, please.
Speaker 1 (39:49):
Do, amen, So keep your ear to the ground. People
support your local innocence organizations as well as larger ones
like Innocence Canada. I mean the money go a long
way with Innocence Canada, believe me, and we'll have their
site linked in the bio. So now we come, of course,
to my favorite part of the show. Closing Arguments is
(40:10):
the section of the show where first of all, I
thank you all of you for being here and sharing
this unreal story. I'm gonna turn my microphone off, kick
back in my chair with my headphones on, if I
close my eyes and just zone in on whatever else
you want to share. Bobin, please start us off, and
then I'll leave it up to you to hand the
(40:30):
mic off to whoever you want to have go next,
and then the other guy will take us off into
the sunset.
Speaker 3 (40:37):
The only thing I will say is, for almost fifty years,
Brian and Alan have maintained their innocence. They have spent
the majority of their life marked as murderers, and yet
every day, both of them wake up, continue to fight
to clear their name. And you know, as Jason mentioned
in one of the parole reports that I read, they
(40:58):
talk about Brian's session with his innocence, and in both
Brian and Allen's case, their obsession with proving their innocence
has never wavered. Their story is one of enduring strength, determination,
and perseverance.
Speaker 5 (41:14):
Yes, well, I got to keep crying. I can't give up.
I need but I need help. I there's nothing I can.
Speaker 4 (41:21):
Do by myself.
Speaker 5 (41:24):
Whoever's out there we can help, will even better.
Speaker 4 (41:28):
That's what I need.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
Oh, thank you very much for having me here. There
was a great privilege to be here. I would like
the audience and all that. You know, we always think
about justice, but justice has to come soon. I can't
just steal happen and then nothing, nothing happens. So we
(41:50):
have to make a decision. This review has to come
to an end at some point. I just wish they'd
make a decision quickly because just think also are stressful,
the fact that this is hanging over you. Well, when
am I getting out? You know why? Am I getting out?
Day in and day out? You know it? Just where's
the oat? Psychologically dreaming. Please be aware of that there's
(42:13):
a lot of injustice in this world, and it's people,
and we always think it'll never happen to me, but
it does happen. I certainly never told you what happened
to me.
Speaker 1 (42:30):
Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to
thank our production team Connor Hall, Jeff Cliburn, and Kevin Wardis,
with research by Lyla Robinson. The music in this production
was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph.
Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction,
on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction podcast, and on Twitter at
(42:52):
wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava for Good. On
all three platforms, you can also follow me on both
TikTok and Instagram at It's Jason Flahm. Ravel Conviction is
the production of Lava for Good Podcasts and association with
Signal Company Number one
Hosts And Creators
Lauren Bright Pacheco
Maggie Freleng
Jason Flom
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com