Case Summary
On December 23, 1981, at around 8:30 p.m., 16-year-old Barbara Stoppel was working her shift at the Ideal Donut Shop in a Winnipeg shopping plaza. A man entered the shop, obtained the keys from behind the counter, and locked the front door. He went with Stoppel into the women’s washroom, where he wrapped nylon twine around her throat and strangled her. Stoppel died in hospital some days after the assault.1
Police interviewed eyewitnesses who were in the nearby McDonald’s at the time of the assault. They described the perpetrator as a tall man in a cowboy hat who had chosen a seat in the franchise with a sightline to the donut shop. He remained there for some hours, apparently watching the shop.2 Another witness, Lorraine Janower, told police that a man had entered the Boots store where she worked at around 5:30 to 6:00 p.m. and asked if they sold twine.3
Eyewitness Paul MacDougald stated that shortly after 8:00 p.m., he had driven into the Dominion store parking lot in the shopping plaza; while sitting in his truck, he observed a man in the donut shop talking to a female employee.4 MacDougald saw the two proceed to the shop’s back alcove, after which the man went to the front door and locked it, and both people then moved towards the women’s washroom.5
At around 8:20 p.m., Janower went to the Ideal Donut Shop for a coffee and found that it was locked. She saw a man behind the door of the shop, moving towards the washroom.6 Janower and another concerned employee at Boots then attempted to call the shop, without success. At around 8:35 p.m., witness John Doerksen, who was selling Christmas trees nearby, also attempted to enter the shop to pick up a coffee. When he arrived, the front door was locked and he could see no one inside. He waited for a few minutes and was then joined by Norman Janower, who had come to the plaza to pick up his wife. At that point a man came out of the women’s washroom, closed the door, picked up a cardboard box, flipped the shop’s “Open” sign to “Closed,” unlocked the front door, and exited the premises. On his way out he told the two men that the shop was closed.7
Suspecting that something untoward had occurred, Norman Janower entered the shop, where he found Stoppel in the washroom. Meanwhile Doerksen pursued the perpetrator, who was running on foot towards Norwood Bridge. He caught up to the attacker on the bridge, but retreated when the man drew a knife. While the two were on the bridge, Doerksen saw the man throw something over the side.8 By this point, police had arrived at the crime scene and promptly secured the parking lot (in case the killer had arrived in a car, which would still be in the lot since he had fled on foot).9
Thomas Sophonow happened to be in Winnipeg on December 23, having driven for many hours from his Vancouver home in hopes of visiting his two-year-old daughter during the holidays.10 Sophonow had not been able to see her after all, as he and his ex-wife had been unable to reach an agreement regarding the potential visit.11 Sophonow decided to visit his brother and sister-in-law while he was in town and drop off a gift for his daughter. He was at their residence from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.12
After this visit, Sophonow went to the Canadian Tire garage since he was having trouble with his car brakes. While waiting at the garage, he shared his sandwich with the young daughter of local woman Mrs. Peasgood, and bought some Christmas stockings filled with candy and toys from the nearby Safeway grocery store.13 Later in the evening, Sophonow called his mother in Vancouver from the vicinity of the Canadian Tire waiting room, from 7:52 to 7:56 p.m.14 After picking up his car, Sophonow visited a number of hospitals to distribute the Christmas stockings to sick children. He then set off for Vancouver in his car – to which he had access since the vehicle was not, of course, in the Ideal Donuts shopping plaza lot.15
In the course of their investigation, police searched the riverbank beneath Norwood Bridge. They found a cardboard box containing several pieces of green and yellow braided twine, the fibres of which proved to be a match for the twine used in the homicide.16 Police also found two pairs of gloves, made respectively of tan leather and black and white woven fabric. Fibres matching the type of twine used by the perpetrator were found on the black and white gloves.17
In order to ascertain the source of the twine, police brought the samples to the Powers Company in Washington State, and to the Berkley Company manufacturing plant located in Portage La Prairie, near Winnipeg. Powers staff stated, on visual inspection, that the twine appeared to be one of their products. Berkley staff told police that the twine did not look like theirs; however, they could confirm this result with a $100.00 test for the signature trace element that Berkley added to its twine to identify their products in case of a lawsuit. Police declined to order this test – which would have revealed that the twine had in fact originated from the Berkley Company’s manufacturing plant in Portage La Prairie.18
Since police believed the twine to have come from the Powers Company plant in Washington State, they wrongly concluded that the murderer had likewise come from the West Coast. Police soon discovered that on the night of the assault, Sophonow had been visiting from Vancouver, and that he bore some resemblance to the composite drawing prepared from the witnesses’ descriptions.19
Vancouver police interviewed Sophonow on March 3, 1982. This interview was not recorded. Police notes suggested that Sophonow stated he might have been at the Ideal Donut Shop on the night of the attack.20
On March 12, two Winnipeg police sergeants interrogated Sophonow at the Vancouver detachment.21 Already convinced of his guilt, the officers sought to “break Thomas Sophonow’s will” and elicit a confession that he had killed Stoppel.22 Sophonow endured hours of questioning. Police at no point cautioned him that comments he made could be used against him, nor did they inform him of his right to call a lawyer.23 The officers strip-searched Sophonow and performed a body cavity search, purportedly for drugs, though they had no reason to believe that he had contraband on his person.24 Upon learning of this invasive search, other Winnipeg police officers found it “troubling and unsettling.”25
After the interrogation, police charged Sophonow with Stoppel’s murder and placed him in a holding cell.26 Apparently, Sophonow conversed with the officer guarding the cells, during which he demonstrated, with a twisting motion, how the murderer had locked the donut shop door. This was taken to be “devastating” evidence against him – though police had first given this demonstration to Sophonow, during his lengthy and abusive interrogation.27
Police further supported their belief in Sophonow’s guilt through poorly conducted identification procedures, such that the eyewitnesses evidence evolved significantly between their initial police statements and Sophonow’s first trial.28 Initially, witnesses described the perpetrator as follows:
21 to 30 years old, with brown hair, possibly with a reddish tinge . . . scraggly sideburns, a poor complexion with some noticeable acne pimples or pock marks, particularly on the left side of his face . . . a longish mustache . . . 6'1" - 6'3" in height with a slim build . . . wearing prescription glasses, a black or dark-coloured cowboy hat, a dark-coloured, waist length coat, blue jeans and round-toed or cowboy boots . . . [he had] a pair of black or white work gloves[,] . . . a pair of tan leather gloves[, and] a ring on the ring finger of his left hand.29
As of December 28, 1981, police had become aware of another suspect, Terry Arnold, who: fit this detailed description – including distinctive pockmarks on the left side of his face (which Sophonow, notably, lacked); claimed to know the victim and to have had “a crush” on her; visited Stoppel in the hospital after the attack; and lived in an apartment overlooking the Ideal Donut Shop.30
After police had formed their belief in Sophonow’s guilt, they arranged photo and live line-ups for the witnesses. Doerksen, who had limited vision, attended a live line-up that included Sophonow, and did not identify anyone as the perpetrator.31 However, two days later he saw Sophonow’s picture in the paper, and also had a chance encounter with him, after which he told police that Sophonow was the killer.
Lorraine and Norman Janower were each shown a “startlingly unfair” photo line-up: Sophonow’s photo was the only one with a border, and the only one taken outside.32 Not surprisingly, the Janowers indicated that Sophonow’s picture stood out to them.33 After the line-up, police told Norman Janower that he had selected “the right guy.”34
Mildred King, a witness who had been approached on the evening of the murder by a tall man in a cowboy hat near the Ideal Donut shop, at first did not identify Sophonow from an in-person line-up. She then tentatively indicated that he was “closest” in appearance.35
By the time of Sophonow’s preliminary hearing, Doerksen, the Janowers, and King had all become convinced that he was the killer.36 The court also heard evidence from three incarcerated informants, to whom we will refer as “C”, “Q”, and “M”, who claimed to have heard Sophonow confess while in pre-trial detention. “C” testified in hopes that this would get him out of prison, while police threatened to expose “Q” as a police informant if he did not testify, and “M” had allegedly heard a great many such confessions and been convicted of perjury.37
Sophonow stood trial three times on the charge of second degree murder.38 His first trial began on October 18, 1982. A mistrial was declared on November 6, when the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.39 His second trial commenced on February 21, 1983, and this time the jury convicted him on March 17. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.40 Sophonow appealed his conviction and the Manitoba Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge had failed to properly put the defence theory and evidence before the jurors.41 The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown’s appeal of this result.42 Sophonow’s third trial began on February 4, 1985, and the jury returned a guilty verdict on March 16.43
Sophonow again appealed his conviction. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had again erred in not properly putting the defence theory before the jury. The judge had also erred in preventing the jurors from hearing Sophonow’s alibi evidence of his whereabouts on the night of the murder. The court, moreover, concluded that the eyewitness evidence was not reliable, and criticized police for their unlawful interrogation practices.44 The court quashed Sophonow’s conviction and acquitted him, finding that the eyewitness evidence would only degrade further over time, and that there was no realistic possibility of selecting a jury untainted by the widespread, sensationalistic media coverage of his case. The court ordered Sophonow’s immediate release on December 12, 1985, by which time he had spent three years and nine months in prison.45
Despite Sophonow’s acquittal, many people still believed him to be guilty. He was threatened on several occasions and his home was firebombed.46 On June 8, 2000, the Government of Manitoba issued a news release in which the Attorney General apologized to Sophonow and stated that he was innocent.47
A Commission of Inquiry, led by the Honourable Peter Cory, was formed to determine the causes of Sophonow’s wrongful conviction. The Sophonow Inquiry identified numerous deficiencies and systemic problems that beset Sophonow’s police investigation and prosecution, resulting in this miscarriage of justice. It concluded that police had developed “tunnel vision” at an early stage in the investigation. As a result, they focused on Sophonow “as the killer to the exclusion of all [other suspects] . . . [,] failing to accept any evidence or explanation that was contrary to their theory.”48 The police tunnel vision stemmed from their failure to obtain the inexpensive testing on the twine used to strangle the victim, leading to their mistaken – but powerful – belief that the killer was from British Columbia.49
The Inquiry further found that Sophonow had been victimized by coercive police practices: the Vancouver interrogation was improperly performed, deficiently recorded, and thus generated misleading evidence against him. This event had a “lasting and traumatizing effect” on Sophonow.50
Compounding the impact of this misconduct, the Inquiry found that prosecutors had improperly failed to disclose potentially crucial information to Sophonow’s defence counsel.51 Notably, the Crown never disclosed the fact that a test was available to establish the provenance of the twine used in the homicide.52
In addition, the Crown failed to disclose deficits in the evidence from the eyewitness and incarcerated informants. These problems included: the threats and incentives that inspired “C”, “Q”, and “M” to come forward; “M”’s criminal record for perjury; eyewitnesses’ initial inability or hesitation to identify Sophonow; the fact that certain witnesses had undergone police hypnosis (which can create false memories); and improper police lineup procedures. In addition to the blatant unfairness of Sophonow’s “special” photo, the line-ups were not blinded (that is, police administering them knew Sophonow was the suspect and where he was in the line-up). The line-ups were also presented simultaneously, rather than in sequence, a dangerous practice that invites witnesses to select the “closest” available match.53
The Inquiry recommended that Sophonow be compensated for his wrongful conviction.54 In 2002, he received $2.6 million from the provincial and federal government, but not until after he had commenced civil litigation and obtained DNA testing, which conclusively established that he could not be the killer.55 Terry Arnold – whom police have acknowledged “slipped through the cracks” – never stood trial for Stoppel’s murder, but is considered the most likely suspect.56 After her death, Arnold was convicted of multiple sexual assaults and one murder, before taking his life in March 2005.57