The Jessops and the Morins were neighbours in the small town of Queensville, about 35 miles north of Toronto. On the afternoon of October 3, 1984, the school bus returned Christine to her home at about 3:50 p.m. No one was there. Her mother, Janet, had taken Christine’s older brother, Ken, to the dentist in Newmarket. The precise time of their return to the Jessop home was a major issue at the second trial. Guy Paul Morin left work at 3.32 that afternoon and could have arrived home no sooner than 4:14 p.m.. Accordingly, the Jessops’ time of return had an impact on any ‘window of opportunity’ for Mr. Morin to have committed this crime. Mr. Morin gave evidence to demonstrate that he arrived home well after the Jessops and therefore had no opportunity to abduct Christine Jessop. The prosecution vigorously disputed his alibi and suggested that he changed his time of arrival in various statements to avoid responsibility for the murder. Christine was not in the house when the Jessops returned, but there was no immediate cause for alarm. But when she failed to show up by early evening, Ms. Jessop called the police. A search of the area was organized and it continued for several days. No trace of Christine was found. As time passed, concerns heightened that she had been the subject of foul play. York Regional Police conducted the investigation into her disappearance. Her body was found on December 31, 1984, near the town of Sunderland in Durham Region, about 56 kilometers east of Queensville. Her body was on its back with her knees spread apart in an unnatural position. An autopsy determined that she had been stabbed in the chest several times and this had been the cause of death. The presence of semen on her underpants irresistibly suggested that she had been sexually assaulted. Her body was badly decomposed, and death could have occurred three months before its discovery. Because her body was found in Durham Region, the Durham Regional Police Service took charge of the case. John Scott prosecuted Mr. Morin at his first trial. Susan MacLean assisted Mr. Scott. Clayton Ruby and Mary Bartley defended Mr. Morin. Leo McGuigan was the lead prosecutor at the second trial, assisted by Alex Smith and Susan MacLean. Jack Pinkofsky, Elizabeth Widner and Joanne McLean defended Mr. Morin. Brian Gover was leading prosecutor during a lengthy motion by the defence to stay the proceedings at the second trial."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Around the time that the Ontario Centre for Forensic Sciences was performing the forensic work on the police investigation of Christine Jessop's death, I and many of my colleagues in the criminal bar were skeptical of the ability of the lab to conduct a high quality, independent investigation for several reasons. One was that defence lawyers at the time were only permitted to submit a substance or object for investigation if they agreed that a copy of the Centre's report - possibly a central part of the defence - would be handed over to the prosecutors. (That was taboo in our adversarial system of criminal justice). For another, based on the accumulated trial experience of the criminal bar, there was a strong suspicion that the Centre's scientists were biased in favour of the Crown which funded it. When the DNA results exonerated Guy Paul Morin, I was thrilled by the Ontario Government's decision to order a public inquiry to be headed by Justice Fred Kaufman, a highly experienced and regarded criminal law judge and scholar. When Justice Kaufman's report was released I discovered not only that these suspicions had been justified, but that Guy Paul Morin had been the victim of a forensic slaughter, so to speak. Indeed, the operation of the prestigious, iconic, so-called world-class forensic centre and its staff was far worse than I had ever imagined. Justice Kaufman had been required by order in council to inquire into the conduct of the investigation into the death of Christine Jessop, the conduct of the Centre for Forensic Sciences in relation to the maintenance, security and preservation of forensic evidence, and into the criminal proceedings involving the charge that Guy Paul Morin murdered Christine Jessop. In short, as Justice Kaufman summed it up, his mandate required him to determine, to the extent possible, why the investigation into the death of Christine Jessop and the proceedings which followed resulted in the arrest and conviction of an innocent person. As you will see from this post and others to be published over the next few days, Justice Kaufman got to the heart of his mandate, as he eviscerated the Centre for Forensic Sciences, several of its scientists, police officers and prosecutors for their role in the charging an innocent man with murder and securing his conviction. The Executive Summary of his report reads like a true crime novel - and could, indeed be the subject of a very interesting podcast. In prefatory comments on this 'forensics' section of the 'Executive Summary,' Judge Kaufman writes: "The Centre of Forensic Sciences (“CFS”) in Toronto is the principal laboratory where forensic examinations are conducted for criminal investigations in Ontario. It is publicly funded and accountable to the Ministry of the Solicitor General. Two CFS forensic analysts, Stephanie Nyznyk and Norman Erickson, gave evidence as to hair and fibre comparisons at the instance of the prosecution. The prosecution relied on the hair and fibre findings made by these scientists to demonstrate that there was physical contact between Christine Jessop and Guy Paul Morin, and that Christine was transported in the Morin Honda to her death by Mr. Morin. The evidence was said to refute Guy Paul Morin’s denial that he had any physical contact with Christine and his specific assertion that Christine had never been in the Honda. Stephanie Nyznyk testified at both trials; Norman Erickson at the second trial only." The ultimate question that was plaguing the Canadian public after Guy Paul Morin was exonerated was, 'how could an innocent man subsequently proven innocent by DNA evidence have been convicted of murder.' Put another way, as I repeat at the conclusion of every post on this Blog, "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices." (Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project). In this and following posts, I will feature a a different area of Justice Kaufman's report, starting today with The Centre of Forensic Sciences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hair Findings:
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: " Properly understood, the hair comparison evidence had little or no probative value in proving Mr. Morin’s guilt. Generally, hair comparison evidence (absent DNA analysis) is unlikely to have sufficient probative value to justify its reception as circumstantial evidence of guilt at a criminal trial. Ms. Nyznyk did not adequately or accurately communicate the limitations upon her hair comparison findings to police and prosecutors prior to the second trial. Prior to Guy Paul Morin’s arrest, Ms. Nyznyk conducted a hasty, preliminary comparison of the necklace hair and Guy Paul Morin’s irs in the investigators’ presence. She communicated a preliminary opinion to the officers. That opinion was overstated and, to her knowledge, left the officers with the understanding that the comparison yielded important evidence implicating Mr. Morin. Had the limitations on Ms. Nyznyk’s early findings been adequately communicated by her, Mr. Morin may not have been arrested when he was — if, indeed, ever."
---------------------------------------------------------
"When Christine Jessop’s body was discovered, a single dark hair was found embedded in skin tissue adhering to her necklace. This came to be known as the ‘necklace hair.’ This hair was not Christine’s and it was presumed to have come from her killer. This hair was said to be microscopically similar to Guy Paul Morin’s hair and could have originated from him. After Guy Paul Morin’s first trial and before his second, an analysis of hairs belonging to Christine Jessop’s classmates revealed that two classmates had hairs which were also microscopically similar.
Three hairs found in Mr. Morin’s car were said to be dissimilar to Mr. Morin’s hairs. It was said that these were similar to Christine Jessop’s hairs and could have come from her.
- Properly understood, the hair comparison evidence had little or no probative value in proving Mr. Morin’s guilt. Generally, hair comparison evidence (absent DNA analysis) is unlikely to have sufficient probative value to justify its reception as circumstantial evidence of guilt at a criminal trial.
- Ms. Nyznyk did not adequately or accurately communicate the limitations upon her hair comparison findings to police and prosecutors prior to the second trial.
- Prior to Guy Paul Morin’s arrest, Ms. Nyznyk conducted a hasty, preliminary comparison of the necklace hair and Guy Paul Morin’s irs in the investigators’ presence. She communicated a preliminary opinion to the officers. That opinion was overstated and, to her knowledge, left the officers with the understanding that the comparison yielded important evidence implicating Mr. Morin.
- Had the limitations on Ms. Nyznyk’s early findings been adequately communicated by her, Mr. Morin may not have been arrested when he was — if, indeed, ever.
- Detective Bernie Fitzpatrick testified about Ms. Nyznyk’s early hair and fibre findings at Guy Paul Morin’s bail hearing. His evidence was inaccurate. This was not deliberate, but can explained, in large measure, by the inadequate way Ms. Nyznyk’s findings (and their limitations) were communicated by her.
- The hair comparison evidence was misused by the prosecution in its closing address at the second trial (though the Commissioner did not find that this was done malevolently). Particulars of this misuse are contained in the Report. "
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Fibres were collected from the taping of Christine Jessop’s clothing and recorder bag found at the body site, from the taping and vacuuming of the Morin Honda and from tapings of the Morin residence. Many thousands of fibres (perhaps hundreds of thousands) were examined. Several became significant. Ms. Nyznyk and Mr. Erickson testified at the Morin criminal proceedings that several of the fibres from the Morin-related locations were similar and could have come from the same source as several fibres found at the body site.The Commissioner found that the similarities, even if they all existed, proved nothing."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The Commissioner also reflected the fact that original evidence was lost at the CFS between the first and second trials. Finally, he noted that certain terms, such as ‘match’ and ‘consistent with’ were used unevenly and were potentially misleading. The use of these terms contributed to misunderstanding of the forensic findings."
-----------------------------------------------
"Fibres were collected from the taping of Christine Jessop’s clothing and recorder bag found at the body site, from the taping and vacuuming of the Morin Honda and from tapings of the Morin residence. Many thousands of fibres (perhaps hundreds of thousands) were examined. Several became significant. Ms. Nyznyk and Mr. Erickson testified at the Morin criminal proceedings that several of the fibres from the Morin-related locations were similar and could have come from the same source as several fibres found at the body site.
The Commissioner found that the similarities, even if they all existed, proved nothing. His findings included:
- The fibre evidence was contaminated within the Centre of Forensic Sciences. The timing and precise origin of the contamination cannot now be determined. However, it remains possible that this contamination tainted Ms. Nyznyk’s earliest findings. No inferences can safely be drawn from any alleged fibre similarities, given the existence of this in-house contamination.
- This contamination was known to Ms. Nyznyk and Mr. Erickson prior to the first trial and withheld by them from the police, the prosecution, the defence and the Court. This may have been done to avoid embarrassment to themselves and to the CFS; it was not done out of personal malice towards Guy Paul Morin or with any desire to convict an innocent person. They believed, rightly or wrongly, that the contamination was unrelated to Ms. Nyznyk’s original findings, but this afforded them no excuse.
- There was no real interest in documenting the contamination, how it had occurred, whether it had affected other cases within the Centre and how it might be prevented in the future. Indeed, Ms. Nyznyk declined to retain any documentary record of the contamination in her file.
- The existence of in-house contamination was known generally within the biology section of the CFS.
- Further examination on already contaminated fibres was ordered by Mr. Erickson for possible use at the second trial. This further examination yielded potentially exculpatory findings which were not communicated by Mr. Erickson to the prosecution or to the defence.
- Apart from internal contamination, the fibre similarities were not probative in demonstrating direct contact between Christine Jessop and Guy Paul Morin — instead, they were equally explainable by random occurrence or environmental contamination; the number and nature of the fibre similarities did not support the prosecution’s position.
- Ms. Nyznyk and Mr. Erickson failed to communicate accurately or adequately the limitations on their findings to the police, the prosecutors and the Court.
- Mr. Erickson (and likely Ms. Nynyk) provided the prosecution with a published study on fibre transference (the Jackson and Cook study) which did not support an inference that the fibre similarities in the Morin case were at all significant in proving direct contact.
- The study, properly understood, did not support the case for the prosecution. The details of the study were irrelevant to the Morin proceedings. They were elicited from both CFS scientists. Mr. Erickson and Ms. Nyznyk failed to accurately or adequately communicate the limited relevance of the study to the prosecutors or to the Court.
- The fibre findings and, more particularly, the Jackson and Cook study, were misused by the prosecution in its closing address. Although the Crown’s closing address, in some respects, took the stud y farther than anything that the scientists had said about it, the Commissioner did not find that the study’s misuse by the prosecution was deliberate.
The Commissioner also reflected the fact that original evidence was lost at the CFS between the first and second trials. Finally, he noted that certain terms, such as ‘match’ and ‘consistent with’ were used unevenly and were potentially misleading. The use of these terms contributed to misunderstanding of the forensic findings. "
------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions:
‘Indications’ of Blood:
"The prosecution also tendered CFS expert evidence that there were microscopic ‘indications of blood’ in the Morin Honda. This was a ‘presumptive’ or ‘preliminary’ test which did not prove that there was, indeed, blood in the vehicle, let alone human blood, let alone Christine Jessop’s blood. The Commissioner found that Mr. White, the CFS serologist, accurately articulated the limitations upon his findings. However, the evidence did not have sufficient probative value to justify its reception."
The entire section can be read at:https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/morin/morin_esumm.html
