Case Summary
Beverley Ann Perrin was a schoolteacher in Stoney Creek, Ontario. On the night of February 13, 1989, Perrin was driving to the grocery store from the hospital after visiting her husband, who was dying of cancer, and dropping off her daughter at night school.1 Her body was found two days later in a field off Tapleytown Road. There was evidence that she had been sexually assaulted.2
Police found two napkins beside Perrin’s body and sent them to the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) in Toronto. For reasons that were never explained, CFS “reported no significant findings with respect to the napkins” at this juncture.3 Police also found Perrin’s car, in an underground parking garage on Grandville Avenue, around the corner from where she was last seen. The car had been wiped down with gasoline and vandalized; it was missing its rear tires and littered with blood and cigarette butts.4
A few days later, a confidential informant told police that a man named Terry Pearce, who lived near the parking garage, had spoken to them about selling the Perrin vehicle’s tires.5 Two more informants came forward in December 1989 and January 1990. They stated that Pearce was involved in Perrin’s murder and had admitted to driving her vehicle.6
Police interrogated Pearce, who denied that he was responsible. He pointed the finger at a man named Steve Clarke, who was in prison at that time on an unrelated matter. Police then questioned Clarke, who stated, conversely, that Pearce was the one responsible.7
Given this state of affairs, police obtained a wiretap authorizing them to intercept Pearce and Clarke’s communications. Since Clarke was incarcerated, “[t]hey were communicating … through their respective girlfriends,” one of whom was 17-year-old Tammy Waltham.8 Police learned through the wiretap that Clarke believed a man named Chris McCullough had informed on him.9
The officers also “spoke to various members of … Pearce’s family. The police made it clear that it was to his advantage to tell them who was involved” in Perrin’s murder.10 Pearce’s aunt then “spoke to [Pearce] at length,” as a result of which Pearce made a police statement on May 22, 1990.11 This time he “admitted involvement” in the murder, stating that he had driven Perrin’s car, and “identified Chris McCullough as the killer.”12
The following day, Waltham (Pearce’s partner) made a police statement that also implicated McCullough.13 On May 24, 1990, McCullough was arrested and charged with first degree murder.14 Police searched his home but found no evidence connecting him to the crime.15
Clarke, meanwhile, changed his story in a June 18, 1990 police statement. This time he “told the police that he was present at the crime,” and identified McCullough as the person who killed Perrin.16 Clarke was then charged with forcible confinement and accessory after the fact of murder.17 Ultimately, he pled guilty to these charges and was sentenced to four years in prison.18
While McCullough was in pre-trial custody, several “jailhouse” informants came forward, claiming that McCullough confided in them that he had murdered Perrin. McCullough denied making any such statements.19
One informant, D., also arranged for McCullough to have a conversation with an undercover police officer posing as a hitman, in regards to taking out a hit on Clarke.20 When this came to light, McCullough did not dispute that the incident occurred: he pled guilty to a charge of counselling to commit murder, and was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.21 He did, however, dispute having also confessed to Perrin’s murder. The officer’s account was that he asked if it was “just the two of you” (McCullough and Clarke) involved in the killing, to which McCullough replied: “No[,] there was four of us[,] but the other two I’m not too worried about.”22 McCullough maintained that this exchange never happened.23
McCullough stood trial for first degree murder in 1991.24 The Crown’s case relied primarily on testimony from Clarke, Waltham, and the “jailhouse” informants.25 D. testified that McCullough had not only confessed to killing Perrin, but had also asked for his help in concocting an alibi and arranging for Clarke to be killed (because he was the only witness whom McCullough deemed a threat).26 McCullough took the stand and testified that he had nothing to do with the murder. He also stated that D. was the one who persuaded him to try to have Clarke killed.27
On December 18, 1991, the jury convicted McCullough of second degree murder. He was sentenced to life in prison with no parole eligibility for eighteen years.28
In February 1992, Waltham told a news reporter that she had lied at McCullough’s trial. According to Waltham, police had offered to help her regain custody of her baby in exchange for supporting their theory of the case. She claimed that “[i]t was so simple to make up a story” because the police would suggest how events had unfolded: “[t]he only thing [she] had to do was just go on” down the path they laid out.29 Waltham stated that she had soon wished to recant, but police threatened to charge her with perjury, or even as an accessory to the murder.30
In light of this development, “the police commenced a further investigation” and Waltham “gave a statement confirming that she had lied at [McCullough’s] trial.”31 McCullough appealed his conviction, based on the fresh evidence of Waltham’s recantation.32
At the appeal proceedings, Waltham again recanted her trial evidence. She stated that “she gave … false information because of pressure from the police and Pearce’s relatives,” and that “the police fed her the information implicating” McCullough.33 However, the Ontario Court of Appeal found Waltham to be “a completely incredible witness” and that “[m]any of her assertions about the police providing her with information are provably false by independent evidence.”34 This said, the court also concluded that Waltham’s “trial testimony was of questionable value.”35
In the midst of these proceedings, McCullough’s defence counsel learned that informant D. wished to recant as well. D. was called to testify before the Court of Appeal, where he “recanted virtually all of his evidence implicating” McCullough.36 He stated that McCullough had not confessed to killing Perrin: “[r]ather, D. … had contacts with the police [and] learned of the police theory from one of the investigating officers. He then weaved [together] information provided by [McCullough] and presented it to the police as if it were an admission.”37
D. also told the Court of Appeal that he had persuaded McCullough “that he would inevitably be convicted” and his only hope of acquittal was to have Clarke killed.38 D. testified that the undercover officer posing as a hitman was aware that his evidence against McCullough was false. (Police denied this allegation.)39 D. stated that in exchange for his help, he received benefits including “assistance with outstanding charges,” placement in the witness protection program, and a cash reward of $8,000.40
The Court of Appeal did not accept all of D’s evidence – notably, his claim to have been “concerned for his safety, if he should recant.”41 The Court found, nonetheless, that it could not say it was “satisfied that [D.’s] testimony that he fabricated the admissions by [McCullough] and his role in the plot to kill Clarke is untrue.”42 The Court also found the trial evidence of the other “jailhouse” informants to be suspect, since they “were seeking favours of one sort or another in exchange for their information.”43
Finally, the Court considered forensic evidence that also came to light in the course of the appeal proceedings. Upon re-examining the napkins found near Perrin’s body, the Centre of Forensic Sciences obtained a semen sample which yielded a DNA profile. This profile did not match McCullough’s, or that of any other suspect. The Centre also determined that DNA retrieved from a number of other exhibits, including the cigarette butts left in Perrin’s car, did not match McCullough’s profile or that of other suspects.44
On January 11, 2000, in light of this DNA evidence and of D.’s recantation, the Court of Appeal overturned McCullough’s murder conviction and ordered a new trial. The Court also reduced his counselling to commit murder sentence to time served, noting that the sentence was selected “on the basis of the facts as testified to by D. at the trial” and this “version of events [could] no longer be supported.”45 Rather than prosecute McCullough again, the Crown chose in June 2000 not to proceed with the murder charge against him.46 McCullough subsequently sued the police for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and false imprisonment. The civil court dismissed his lawsuit in April 2016.47