Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2020

Uncover Season 5: Sharmini – I Don’t Recall

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

[Crickets chirping and footsteps]

VOICE 1: On March 20^th…

VOICE 2: Run!

[Heavy breathing and running]

VOICE 1: ..only one movie experience this year will make you afraid to breathe.

VOICE 3: You won’t survive.

VOICE 2: We have to try.

VOICE 1: A Quiet Place: Part II. In theatres March 20^th. Tickets on sale now.

[Music]

ANNOUNCER: This is a CBC original podcast.

[Music]

RICK STEINER: Well, Michelle if you had any sympathy, you would take a neutral position. And after 20 years, maybe you could give Stanley a little bit of the benefit of the doubt. But you are weighing the scales against him.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: What we've been doing for the last few months is going through all the court documents, looking at the cases. I have gone into this with an open mind and I'm just trying to figure out where the truth is.

RICK: Well, you're kind of leaning one way, Michelle. He can't get out of jail. It sounds like he's there indefinitely. What have you got to gain from that? He was already treated worse than anybody who would have been convicted. Maybe you can take that approach in your story?

Michelle, I hope that I have made a difference in you and you will shed some light and you will try a different angle, because with my understanding, if we're supposed to be innocent before proven guilty, Stanley has not been proven guilty for the murder of Sharmini.

MICHELLE: This is Stanley Tippett's cousin, Rick Steiner.

Hello?

Our phone call actually started out friendly enough.

RICK: Michelle?

MICHELLE: Hi, Rick. How are you?

RICK: I'm OK, thanks. Yourself?

MICHELLE: I'm good. Thank you for taking the time. Um…

It was Tippett who gave me Rick's name and number.

Did Stanley let you know that I was going to be calling?

RICK: I'm not sure he said you're going to call or he's going to call you or something or other. But absolutely to be in touch.

MICHELLE: Okay, great.

I'm happy to speak with Rick. But it only takes 20 minutes before he gets frustrated.

RICK: I'm so disappointed with the direction that I found you're taking, Michelle. I was really quite uplifted to think that somebody was going to maybe be able to help Stanley out after all this time.

MICHELLE: He believes I should be working to clear Tippett's name. He says that because of the way his cousin looks, everyone just presumes he's guilty and he repeats Tippett's assertion that he was wrongfully convicted for the sexual assault of the 12-year-old girl.

RICK: And I would really appreciate it if you would be focusing on something more like that than trying to hurt Stanley again. He's been through enough.

MICHELLE: Rick is annoyed that I am even re-investigating Sharmini's case.

RICK: Why-- why would somebody be bringing that up again after 20 years?

It doesn't look like anything that's going to convict him or they would have done it now.

He is in jail now for life. People that do murder people and are convicted do not spend that much time in jail. Michelle, shake your head, please. Come on, now. Have a heart. Think about it. Put yourself in that situation. It could happen to anybody.

MICHELLE: I'm sorry to get you upset.

RICK: When is enough enough? Michelle, lay off. Stanley doesn't have many choices. He is kind of grasping, hoping that you can help him out. And instead, it sounds to me like you're trying to put another nail in the coffin.

MATT: Sharmini left home that morning to go to a brand new job. We have not been able to find that job she was going to.

SUSAN ANDERSON: I want to believe my son's innocent, but it's kind of hard to picture, you know?

DAN SMITH: Never, ever, have I met a man like him, and dealt with a lot of serious offenders. Never have I ever come across a person like Stanley Tippett.

HAIG DERUSHA: I'm prepared to assume Stanley is telling the truth and I think everyone should.

STANLEY TIPPETT: I think it's important for the public to know. There is evidence that supports my innocence.

[Music]

MICHELLE: I'm Michelle Shephard and this is Uncover: Sharmini. Chapter Five: I Don't Recall.

[Music]

RICK: Michelle, please, please, please, have a heart.

MICHELLE: I do, Rick, and I appreciate you speaking with me. I really do and I'll be back in touch if I have specific questions. And also, you have my number now, so if you think of something else.

RICK: Don't be cruel with this. Think about it. There are other human beings involved that are less fortunate than you.

[Cross talk]

RICK: Protect the innocent, Michelle. Please.

MICHELLE: Ok, take care. Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it.

RICK: No, you don't. Anyway, thanks, bye.

[Click]

MICHELLE: Actually, I really did appreciate his time. It's not easy talking to a journalist.

Yes, his tone was absolutely off-putting, condescending, paternalistic, while knowing nothing about me, or giving me a chance to explain the podcast. But I let him talk for most of the call and I have to admit, he kind of threw me. My Achilles heel is that, unlike some of my journalism colleagues, I don't relish confrontation. It always unnerves me.

And what if Rick had a point? Am I missing something? Could Tippett have been a marked man for 20 years because he was once a suspect in Sharmini's killing? This brings me back to where we started. What if Tippett isn't guilty?

[Music]

STANLEY: Before, I guess-- I guess that I am only willing to speak about the wrongful conviction and I'm not prepared to talk about anything else because I have nothing else to add.

MICHELLE: Well, I mean, as I said last time, I obviously can't force you to talk about something you don't want to talk about. So I'm going to ask all the questions I want to ask, and then you answer what you feel you're able to answer.

STANLEY: OK.

MICHELLE: We're back talking to Tippett. It's our second interview with him in about two months. I want to dig deeper into his claim that he was wrongfully convicted for the assault of the 12-year-old girl in Peterborough. Our goal in the last interview was to just keep him talking. But now we need to be specific and drill down on his inconsistencies.

[Buzzing]

MICHELLE: We've come to Beaver Creek Institution in Gravenhurst, Ontario. He’s been moved here from Warkworth.

Um, why don't we just back up a bit and tell me why you were transferred here.

STANLEY: Things were getting quite violent. Warkworth was changing a lot. With all the increasing violence that was going on, I-- I-- I felt that it was in my own best interest to take steps to protect myself and also move to a better environment.

MICHELLE: Beaver Creek is what's known as minimum/medium prison. It's northeast of Toronto, in Ontario's cottage country. Tippett is still designated as a medium security inmate, just as he was at Warkworth, but Beaver Creek is very different. It's quieter here. Gone is the traditional cacophony of incarceration, the constant clanging of metal doors, the shouting, the intercom with disembodied, monotone voices. I mean, it's still a prison. There's still barbed wire and guards. But inmates, they live in communal houses and walk around the grounds more freely. It's surrounded by a forest. You can actually hear the birds. If the government ever decides to shut some of its prisons, this location could be sold as a perfect escape from the city.

[Music]

MICHELLE: In the time since we've met, we've interviewed a lot of people. So I think it's only fair to give you a chance to kind of try and clear up some inconsistencies and things that you've said to me or things that other people may have said and you might want to respond to.

STANLEY: I'll see whether-- what the questions you have and whether I'm prepared to, you know, talk about that. That's fine. My intentions of being here today is to talk about my wrongful conviction and about, you know, like, I feel that we owe it to the victim. We owe it to her-- to her family. We—we owe it to, you know-- you know, the public. We owe it to them to have the truth out there. And I believe that it's important that people know about the DNA evidence.

[Crickets chirping and footsteps]

VOICE 1: On March 20^th…

VOICE 2: Run!

[Heavy breathing and running]

VOICE 1: ..only one movie experience this year will make you afraid to breathe.

VOICE 3: You won’t survive.

VOICE 2: We have to try.

VOICE 1: A Quiet Place: Part II. In theatres March 20^th. Tickets on sale now.

MICHELLE: So, let's talk about the DNA. Tippett has been mentioning this since the first time we met. His mother and his cousin Rick, they both emphasize it, too. Tippett maintains that the DNA evidence will prove he never attacked the 12-year-old girl.

STANLEY: The DNA shows that on the tank top of the victim, they found semen. When you look at the Ontario Court of Appeal judgement, it actually says two donors was found on the tank top and the appellate submits that this represents a serious misapprehension of the evidence by the trial judge because finding sperms from two men was consistent with the appellate’s carjacking story.

MICHELLE: This is the crux of Tippett's wrongful conviction argument and stay with me here, because I'm going to get a little into the weeds. At Tippett's trial in 2009, a judge found him guilty. He notes in his ruling, that the victim's clothing only had her DNA on it.

But evidence at the trial actually showed there were traces of sperm cells on her tank top from two different men. At his appeal, Tippett argued that this evidence was critical to supporting his version of events, that he was carjacked by two men and they were the ones to sexual assault the girl.

But what he doesn't mention is that the samples were very small. Just a miniscule number of cells, millions fewer than you would normally see if there was recent sexual activity.

STANLEY: I want people to know that at my trial there was evidence from the DNA, that the DNA did not match me, and they brushed it off as nothing but a laundry transfer.

MICHELLE: I'd never heard of a laundry transfer but it's a thing and it's exactly what it sounds like. In the laundry, traces of sperm cells can transfer from one item of clothing to another and a forensic expert testified at Tippett's trial that this was one plausible explanation for the sperm cells on the victim's tank top.

In 2015, Tippett lost the appeal. The appellate judge conceded that while the trial judge erred by not noting the sperm cells, the error was not significant. In fact, he noted that the male DNA proved nothing. There wasn't enough of a sample to match it to anyone. So it didn't point to somebody else sexually assaulting the 12-year-old, nor did it convict Tippett. It was simply inconclusive. But the other evidence, including testimony from witnesses, such as the police officer who said he saw Tippett fleeing the scene, or the victim's friends, that-- that was enough to convict Tippett.

In denying the appeal, and upholding Tippett's conviction, the appellate judge wrote that Tippett's carjacking defence was completely unbelievable.

So is there at any point you think, “I have this very inebriated 12-year-old, this child in the car with me.” Why don't you call 911?

STANLEY: I’m getting carjacked by two guys. And how can I, you know, say, “Hey, you know, we're going to call the police now.” I was getting carjacked.

MICHELLE: But Tippett isn't letting go. He is now asking for a review of the DNA analysis from the Minister of Justice.

[Music]

MICHELLE: I actually believe everybody deserves a second chance. I really, fundamentally do, and I believe good people can do bad things. I think we're all capable of it and I respect those people who admit to what they did and then they pay their price and then they have another chance. You could have that. You really could, but you're going to die in jail if you keep denying that you did certain crimes. You know that, right?

STANLEY: I know that I believe in my heart that the truth will come out and I believe that when the evidence comes out, I will be exonerated and--

MICHELLE: For both this crime and Sharmini.

I keep trying to go back to Sharmini, but he won't.

STANLEY: I didn't get-- I wasn't charged and I'm, you know, I have nothing to do with Sharmini.

MICHELLE: But in the court of public opinion, you're still convicted.

STANLEY: People can have an opinion and I'm only responsible for my own actions. I'm not responsible for what other people do.

MICHELLE: What do you want to say to Sharmini's family? Because they do think you killed her.

STANLEY: I can only say that I didn't do anything wrong, and my heart goes out to the family and I hope that the person responsible does, you know. Unfortunately, I don't think that's going to happen. You know, I just wish that this never happened. Um, you know, like, I think this is horrible and there's nothing that can be said. Like, I wish I could help, but I can't.

MICHELLE: You said you don't think the person responsible will be held responsible. Why?

STANLEY: I think that, you know, like, to me is I feel that people should-- you know, like investigators, they should have done a better job by investigating. You know, I think they, um, went in the wrong direction and I think that they, um, wasted a lot of time and valuable time.

[Music]

MICHELLE: When we began looking into Sharmini's case, I wasn't sure Tippett was guilty. We've done our homework. We tracked down witnesses from 20 years ago. We learned about his other crimes, and how closely some evidence overlapped with Sharmini's case and we did our due diligence into his claim of being wrongly convicted. The court records from his dangerous offender hearing, the testimony from cops, psychiatrists, and those who know him-- they speak, no, they shout for themselves. He's a risk to society. Tippett has applied for parole but was denied. So yes, he's in jail, but not for Sharmini's killing. And while it's unlikely he'll get parole, it's possible. Even if he did do it, I know Tippett's not going to confess. Everybody told us he wouldn't. I've read and re-read his psychological profile and I'm not a trained interrogator.

Let me just finish, Stanley. If you can't recall something, don't answer it. But don't lie and you promised.

STANLEY: I’m not. I'm not lying. I'm being truthful.

MICHELLE: We all make mistakes. We all do things that are wrong.

STANLEY: But I’m not going to admit to something I didn't do.

MICHELLE: So in the article in 1999, I'm just gonna read you what you told me at that time. And it said, “Tippett was able to fit in among the youths in the building with only occasional work cutting grass. He had lots of time and he said he took Sharmini, her brothers, and others in the building swimming. He also taught judo to about 10 of the youths. Tippett stressed he was always very careful to get the parents permission before walking or driving the youths anywhere.”

STANLEY: I don't recall. I don't recall saying. I don't recall all those comments. Again, this is something that I'm not-- I'm-- I'm not comfortable talking about something that…especially with 20 years ago. I'm not, um--

MICHELLE: I understand but, I mean, so much of what you want to prove in this case and all your cases goes to your credibility. And you know that others have called you a liar. We went through that last time and you said that you've admitted to the times you've lied before. So, I think it's really important for you to clear this up, for your own credibility.

STANLEY: Well, I'm not saying I was lying about anything. I just don't recall the comments. I don't. I don't recall what I've said, and I don't want to be saying. I don't want to be adding more.

MICHELLE: Listen, I understand not wanting to get into details, but last time we did an interview, I asked you, please be honest.

STANLEY: Um…

MICHELLE: Well, so last time I asked you this question about the kids and you said, “I wouldn't give them a ride in my vehicle. No, no, no, no. A couple of times I told them they could come along and maybe with their families, they could drive there in their car.” That was a couple months ago. 20 years ago, you told me that you had lots of time and you would give them rides. So, I'm trying to figure out what the truth is here. If you didn't recall, you could've told me that last time, “I don't recall,” but you specifically deny what you said before. Do you understand where the problem is?

STANLEY: I'm not exactly sure exactly what-- what you want me to say.

MICHELLE: OK. Then I'll just make it really, really simple. I don’t-- I mean-- we can do yes or no answers, if you want. Did you ever teach kids judo?

STANLEY: No.

MICHELLE: You never did. Did you ever drive kids in the building to swimming lessons?

STANLEY: No.

MICHELLE: So, what you told me 20 years ago was a lie?

STANLEY: I don’t recall my conversation, what I said 20 years ago.

MICHELLE: But I'm showing you the quote in a newspaper.

STANLEY: Oh, OK. No, I don't recall what I said 20 years ago.

MICHELLE: Why do you think you would say that to me?

STANLEY: I don't recall my conversation. I don't recall having that conversation.

MICHELLE: You don't recall speaking with me?

STANLEY: No, I don't recall saying, you know, what I said. I don't recall what my conversation was.

MICHELLE: OK, so let me go to one other. We did talk, last time when we did our interview, and 20 years ago, um, about this issue of the job and I know this has, you know, plagued you over the years in both Sharmini's case and a couple others. So, I want to review that.

STANLEY: I want to just to you know stop you there. I am not interested in talking about the Sharmini case or anything else to do with that.

MICHELLE: Why?

STANLEY: Because I feel that this is something that should be left with the proper authorities, like the investigation, because it is-- as it's an open investigation. I don't want to be-- I don't want to be talking about something that I have no other information that can help the case.

MICHELLE: But you can.

STANLEY: I believe that I don't, and I don't wish to discuss any further.

MICHELLE: But he hasn't said anything about the job offer. And that is so crucial to Sharmini's case. So, I keep going back to it.

So, this is what you told me 20 years ago. “He,” he being you, “he at no time offered her a job,” he said. But did provide her with an application for a North York swimming pool as a favour.

STANLEY: The swimming pool provided her a job. They provided the application to her, yes.

MICHELLE: Okay so they had the application but what you told me 20 years ago--

STANLEY: I didn’t have the application.

MICHELLE: OK, I'm just gonna read you what you told me 20 years ago. "Since he,” being you, “often accompanied youths to the pool, he had heard there were summer job openings. He brought the application to her apartment,” this is Sharmini's apartment, “the week before he moved, which he said was the last time he spoke to her."

STANLEY: No, I don't recall that. No.

MICHELLE: Well, this is what you told me.

STANLEY: I don't recall making that. I don't recall making that comment.

MICHELLE: OK. Well, I'm a journalist. I don't make things up.

STANLEY: I'm just saying, I don't recall making that comment.

MICHELLE: OK, so I'm telling you that you, you-- that's fine if you don't recall it, but I'm telling you, that's what you told me. So now you're telling me that you never gave her an application.

STANLEY: That's correct. I never gave her.

MICHELLE: OK. So, you were lying back then?

STANLEY: I was-- I was never lying and I never-- I don't remember saying that. I don't believe I said that. You know, like, I don't know where that is coming from. I don't recall that at all.

[Music]

MICHELLE: Can I be super honest with you?

STANLEY: Yes.

MICHELLE: I mean, I've been a journalist a long time. You know that. This is a weird position for me to be in because usually I'm writing about, you know, the underdog and miscarriages of justice. I-- I still think that you killed Sharmini.

STANLEY: I didn't, um, and I don't want to discuss, um…

MICHELLE: But help me. Help me believe that you didn't and saying I'm not going to comment--

STANLEY: It is not my-- it is not my… I have a right to not, you know… I basically-- I don't feel that I should have to talk about anything else.

MICHELLE: We're just going in circles now. It has been almost three hours and it's time to go.

Do you think you'll get parole?

STANLEY: I believe that eventually, I will. Basically, I have to show, you know, that I can be managed in the community.

MICHELLE: Do you think this facility is one step closer to that, being here?

STANLEY: Yes, it is. Plus, I also have a lot of-- a lot of things have been, you know, like my-- my parole officers are good. You know, they’re good. They say, you know, “One of the things that your file information shows this but you demonstrate over the 10 years that you're not like that.”

MICHELLE: I think, though, you have to take responsibility for your crimes.

STANLEY: Yeah, it doesn't-- it doesn't help when you maintain you’re innocent.

[Music]

MICHELLE: For someone who is always so careful with details, it's curious that Tippett's story is changing. He now denies giving Sharmini a job application. Is that because he never did, or because he got caught doing the same thing with other girls and young women?

Does he worry now it will make him look guilty? And there are other details he's changed.

During our interview 20 years ago, he said he took some of the children in his building to swimming and judo. And in our first interview, when he was at Warkworth, he even called himself a role model.

And you're always really good with kids, aren't you? I remember that, even from 20 years ago, in the Don Mills building, that you knew a lot of the kids at that time.

STANLEY: Yeah, yeah, I did. Yeah, I was involved. I was involved.

MICHELLE: Why is that?

STANLEY: Because I basically like to help kids. Like, basically, it's hard to describe, like, they look at—they look at you as-- they see that there is a like, a role model.

MICHELLE: Tippett's story from 20 years ago has changed. It's even changed in the last two months.

How can his inconsistencies not be important?

That's next time on Uncover: Sharmini.

KATHEES ANANDAVEL: I never knew, like, for a very long time. I had no idea. Like, I was young, so I think I was sheltered from some of the rumours and stuff, which I found out about later. But once I had, like, really thought about it and Tippett kind of came to mind, it was very obvious. So, to me there was no real question about anything else, like, because I was so close to my sister and, like, I knew-- I knew when she left. I knew why she was leaving. I was there with her when we used to go to like, the swimming pool with this guy.

[Music]

MICHELLE: Uncover: Sharmini is written and produced by myself, Michelle Shephard, and Kathleen Goldhar. Our Associate Producer is Ilina Ghosh. Our Audio Producer is Mitchell Stuart. Our Digital Producer is Judy Ziyi Gu. Chris Oke is our Story Editor. Our Video Producer is Evan Aagard. Transcripts by Rasha Shehata, Varad Mehta and Carol Park. Our Senior Producer of CBC Podcasts is Tanya Springer, and the Executive Producer is Arif Noorani.

[Music]

MICHELLE: If you liked this season of Uncover, check out Uncover: The Cat Lady Case. In 1998, 77-year-old Joan Lawrence vanished without a trace. All police could find were her cats, shot dead. The case remains unsolved but unsealed documents and new witnesses are shedding a light on one of Cottage Country’s darkest crimes. Subscribe to Uncover wherever you get your podcasts.

ANNOUNCER: For more CBC original podcasts, go to cbc.ca/originalpodcasts

TRANSCRIPT: UNCOVER: SHARMINI - EP 5

Social Sharing