chapter twelve

Timo Martin thought he was just doing someone a small favour. In reality, the Toronto pastor had literally given Peter Whitmore a vehicle to escape.

Officers with the sex crimes unit went to Martin almost immediately after Whitmore disappeared, hoping for some clues into his whereabouts. Martin admitted that Whitmore had come to see him following his release from jail.

Whitmore said he needed some help as he tried to adjust to his newfound freedom. He wanted Martin to help him rent a car. Whitmore said he just wanted to be able to drive around Toronto, to get re-acquainted with the city after so much time spent behind bars.

Martin reluctantly agreed, taking Whitmore to a car rental agency, paying for the vehicle and signing the paperwork.

He hoped Whitmore was serious about changing his life around – maybe even getting an honest paying job – and figured having a way to get around town would improve his chances.

Yet Whitmore apparently had more sinister plans.

•••••

A Canada-wide warrant was issued for Whitmore’s arrest. News of the search quickly spread across the country, appearing in numerous newspapers, radio and television newscasts.

At least police had something to work with – the description of the rental vehicle Whitmore had sped away in. It was a green Toyota Echo with Ontario licence plate ABKK 954.

Police didn’t know where Whitmore was headed, but thought he might go west to Alberta where a brother lived. Another possible destination was British Columbia, where his aunt lived. Or maybe Whitmore had headed south, back to Texas? Anything was possible at this point. Nothing was being ruled out.

Not surprisingly, his exit from jail and immediate vanishing act had created a public and political firestorm. His lawyer, Dan Brodsky, fanned the flames by blaming justice officials for “running him out of town” by issuing the public notification. He believed Whitmore panicked once he stepped out of jail and realized just how many eyes would be on him.

The Ontario government reacted by calling on Ottawa to introduce the country’s national registry for sex offenders. Solicitor General David Tsubouchi said it would be an effective way for police across Canada to quickly share information about high-risk offenders. Tsubouchi said the Whitmore case showed peace bonds are simply not enough.

Under his government’s proposal, all registered sex offenders would have to give their addresses to police for storage in the computer databank. Their information would then be kept on file for at least a decade and up to 25 years, depending on their criminal history.

Anyone convicted of a sex-related crime – from rape to child pornography – would be targeted. And there would be stiff penalties for breaching the registry requirements, including up to two years prison and a $25,000 fine.

Police liked what they were hearing. Det.-Insp. Kate Lines of the Ontario Provincial Police estimated that Ontario would add 2,000 names to the registry every year.

“If a child is abducted, the registry could potentially, within seconds or minutes, tell the police of every sex offender within a square mile,” Lines told the Ottawa Citizen.

Not everyone was buying it.

Veteran defence lawyer Julian Falconer, who has acted on behalf of numerous sex offenders and is no stranger to challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, said such restrictive regulations might just drive more sex offenders into hiding. Just look at what happened with Whitmore, he said.

“The person you are most afraid of, the dangerous offender, will simply go underground,” Falconer told the Citizen.

He noted that compliance in similar U.S. programs was only about 50 per cent, according to figures from the John Howard Society. Falconer said widespread public releases, such as the one done with Whitmore, could also backfire.

“If community passion is what we are going to rely upon (for justice), then ultimately we will run these people out into the Arctic,” he told the Citizen.

Falconer also suggested that an offender who has served their sentence is entitled to privacy under the Charter – no matter how much of a risk they have been found to pose.

Justice officials were also forced to deal with questions about the way they’d handled Whitmore’s previous senten­cings. Specifically, why hadn’t they made a dangerous offender application against Whitmore – a move that would jail him indefinitely.

Although he would still have a shot at parole after serving seven years, a dangerous offender label was the stiffest sanction available under Canadian law.

According to Corrections Canada, 279 criminals had been given the notorious designation since the legislation first passed in 1977. The majority were still behind bars. Nearly all were sex offenders. And 119 of them had been sentenced in Ontario.

Why couldn’t Whitmore be number 120?

In an interview with the Toronto Star, senior Crown attorney Paul Culver said it wasn’t as easy as it sounded.

“It’s a pretty high threshold, so it almost never applies to a first-time offender, and only sometimes to a second offence,” Culver said.

Of course, Whitmore was no rookie criminal. He already had two major sets of convictions under his belt. And his latest disappearing act appeared to be strike three.

While the public debate raged on, Toronto police were more focused on finding Whitmore before he had the chance to harm another child. But with each passing day, the situation was becoming more dire.

•••••

PRESIDIO, CHIHUAHUA, MEXICO

JANUARY 11, 2000

Peter Whitmore had come to this border town looking for a fresh start. And likely searching for a whole new pool of unsuspecting victims.

But his plans were quickly scuttled when he filed a refugee claim with Mexican officials. It was a clever attempt at a pre-emptive strike, as Whitmore knew that Canadian authorities would have a difficult time getting him back north if his bid was accepted.

Unfortunately for Whitmore, Mexican officials weren’t about to play his game.

Instead of being accepted with open arms, Whitmore was slapped with handcuffs. His refugee claim was rejected and Whitmore was arrested for illegally entering the country and violating immigration laws.

Word of his capture quickly made its way to Canada – thanks to a heads-up from police in Texas – prompting a sigh of relief from nervous sex crimes investigators. The five-week manhunt was over.

Police had a hunch Whitmore was going south, but there had also been sightings reported in western Canada. One tipster was positive he’d seen Whitmore driving around the streets of Calgary just days earlier.

Police certainly had plenty of questions – and concerns – about where Whitmore had gone and how he’d spent his time. But their answers would have to wait at least a few days, until arrangements could be made to have Whitmore deported back to Canada.

But with Whitmore back in custody, the focus could now shift back to the much-maligned justice system. Whitmore had sent a very loud and clear message to the justice system by snubbing his nose at authority within hours of his release.

Now police hoped the system would send its own message to Whitmore.

•••••

TORONTO, ONTARIO

FEBRUARY 14, 2000

“He feared for his life.”

Toronto defence lawyer Dan Brodsky wanted Canadians to know that his notorious client, Peter Whitmore, had no choice. Staying in the country was not an option. He had to flee.

Brodsky, appearing at the sentencing hearing for Whitmore on his peace bond breach charge, told court that everyone must share in the blame for what happened.

He said Whitmore stepped out of jail for the first time of years – with no real support system in place – and found himself overwhelmed at the public furor over his release.

With no stable residence to call home, no job to report to, no money to his name, Whitmore did what came naturally. He ran.

With help from his friend, Timo Martin, Whitmore got into the rental car, pointed it south and kept driving. He didn’t stop until his reached Mexico, which he hoped would be a “safe haven” that could truly give him a chance for a fresh start.

This was not about scoping out new victims, Brodsky insisted. It was about survival.

“He thought (the public alert about his release) was a licence to kill him,” said Brodsky.

Brodsky also took aim the section 810.1 provisions, questioning how his client could be required to give a “fixed address” to police when no such one existed. Brodsky said it was “unconstitutional” – and that notifying the public about his client’s release was a “recipe for disaster.”

He even suggested Canadian authorities might have been better off just leaving Whitmore in Mexico.

“If he’s such a danger to the citizens of Ontario, why worry if he’s in Mexico,” Brodsky said – apparently with a straight-face – In an interview with the Toronto Sun just days earlier.

Police and the Crown had a vastly different take on the issue.

They had uncovered evidence that Whitmore was planning to find a job in Mexico teaching English – work that would have put him directly in contact with young children. Following his arrest, Whitmore was found to be carrying a list of names of young students – most under the age of 14 – that he was apparently planning to tutor.

And while no direct evidence of sexual activity was uncovered, suspicious investigators knew that was no guarantee nothing had happened.

“There is no doubt that he ever intended on abiding by any of the conditions that were placed on him...Whitmore not only fled the province of Ontario but also traveled through the United States of America and made his way into Mexico. This is more than obvious that he never had intentions of returning to Canada much less the province of Ontario.”

And so the Toronto police incident summary report began, a copy of which was given to the Crown.

“It is known by the investigating officers that while Whitmore was in Presidio County he attempted to ‘trade’ his rental vehicle for another vehicle that was more in tune with the countryside, (a Land Rover). He was also known to be in the company of young children while in Mexico and was known to be taking photographs of these children,” said police.

“The accused was in the process of applying for refugee status in Mexico to avoid being deported back to Canada. It is not known what the basis of his claim that he was using but it was obviously a tactic to avoid prosecution for these offences.”

Police said Whitmore’s stunt had cost Timo Martin $6,250 to get the rental vehicle he’d signed for back to Toronto from Mexico.

“These costs include the rental of the vehicle, the cost of having two representatives go to Mexico to retrieve the vehicle and the cost of shipping the vehicle back to Toronto,” said police.

“This accused, in attempting to mislead the police, left a trail of his travels to avoid arrest and prosecution on these charges. There is no doubt in the investigators minds that if this accused is released from custody...he will once again flee the province,” said police.

Police had also discovered Texas justice officials wanted to get their hands on Whitmore – a warrant had now been issued for his arrest because he illegally entered the United States.

“Based on information received the authorities in Texas may be proceeding with making application to have the accused returned to them. If returned...this accused will serve at least four years and could very well serve six years,” said police.

The Crown argued Whitmore was in no position to complain about the publicity surrounding his case, considering he was the author of his own fate by refusing to complete any treatment while in custody and exhibiting disturbing behaviour that warned of future attacks. The Crown also recited Whitmore’s lengthy criminal history and high-risk of re-offending.

“This is a far more serious matter when the entire circumstances of this offender are looked at,” Justice Sheppard said in handing down his decision. “The court must in this circumstance pay the greatest attention to...the denunciation of the unlawful conduct of Mr. Whitmore. This is because, of course, the entire ability to maintain a rule of law and in particular a rule of criminal law in the country must first and foremost be based on the enforceability of court orders and court directions. If the constitutionally protected judicial process can be ignored by any citizen and simply cast aside as either inconvenient or not worthy of compliance then of course the rule of law is undermined and we return simply to the anarchy of the street,” said Sheppard.

“This is an individual who has a three page criminal record that, since 1993, is dominated by offences against children. He served the entirety of a penitentiary sentence between 1995 and 1999 because the National Parole Board denies his early release and his statutory release since he was diagnosed as a high-risk pedophile, untreated by any therapeutic program within the correctional system,” he said.

Sheppard questioned Whitmore’s motives, suggesting he had sinister plans for heading south.

“The court has not heard from Mr. Whitmore why he chose not to avail himself of any counselling or treatment programs. The inference has to be because Mr. Whitmore did not believe had a problem. It appears that that continues to be his view of himself,” said Sheppard.

“Having been before this court on December 3...within hours Mr Whitmore chose to ignore the provisions of the recognizance. We have before this court lists of names, headed “English Class.” These are all children of tender years, not all under 14 but the vast majority under the age of 14. This of course gives the court grave concern,” said Sheppard.

“The inference the court draws from the totality of this reported evidence is that Mr. Whitmore intended to lose himself in Mexico for some indefinite period of time and put himself beyond the reach of the recognizance, beyond the reach of the Toronto Police Services. This section must carry a significant sanction when it is so flagrantly and deliberately breached, as it was with Whitmore’s flight to Mexico and his failure to report to the police,” he said.

Whitmore had already spent about a month behind bars since his return from Mexico. Sheppard said he was adding another 12 months in jail for the breach – and warned that any further violations would result in much stiffer sanctions.

Although the year-long sentence was lengthy when compared with others who had breached court orders, the court of public opinion had a much different take on the outcome.

Sheppard had refused the Crown’s request for the maximum sentence allowed by law – two years in custody – and many citizens believed Whitmore had just been given yet another slap on the wrist and one more reason to continue his dangerous lifestyle without real fear of consequence.

•••••

TORONTO, ONTARIO

OCTOBER 15, 2000

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

That was the mindset of Toronto police sex crime investigators as Peter Whitmore was about to become a free man. Whitmore had served two-thirds of his year-long sentence and was preparing to walk out of jail.

Police wanted to make sure the public was prepared for Whitmore. Toronto police were considering an unprecedented step – releasing Whitmore’s exact address.

They already had legal clearance to give his name, picture and background to the public once again, but police believed a more drastic move was called for given Whitmore’s likelihood of re-offending.

“Mr. Whitmore has demonstrated by his previous conduct that he is a flight risk. The police need current and accurate information about Mr. Whitmore’s whereabouts to ensure that he does not flee the jurisdiction with the intent of frustrating the order of the court,” police wrote in their application seeking to obtain another section 810 peace bond. “The protection of the community necessitates the police being able to notify any other communities of the risk that Mr. Whitmore poses to children.”

Det. Const. Brian Thomson, who worked in the behavioural assessment section, filed his own affidavit outlining Whitmore’s previous flight to Mexico.

“I fear that Peter Whitmore still poses a threat to re-offend sexually against a child under the age of 14 years. I fear that upon his release from jail, Peter Whitmore will once again flee the jurisdiction of Toronto and fail to report to me his address or his location, as demonstrated by his actions in December 1999,” wrote Thomson.

He said Whitmore had called him a few weeks prior, claiming he’d like to move to British Columbia to live with his aunt, Lynn Hopkins, upon his release. Thomson said he told Whitmore he wanted him to remain in Ontario so police could closely monitor him.

His lawyer, Dan Brodsky, quickly sprung into action, doing the local and national media rounds and claiming such public disclosure might just get Whitmore killed.

“My client is terrified because he currently has an address but will be evicted should the address become public. He’s concerned for his safety and the safety of the people he lives with,” Brodsky told a gathering of reporters.

Police Sgt. Bruce Warren told the National Post that releasing Whitmore’s address would be an unprecedented move by his department.

“In this case he’s a repeat offender. While he was incarcerated [in prison previously], he refused to take any treatment for his problem. The Sexual Assault Squad deemed him to be a very good candidate to reoffend,” said Warren.

Justice Victor Paisley green-lighted the new peace bond against Whitmore with all the same conditions, including reporting to police every Tuesday. Of course, that hadn’t stopped him from fleeing the last time.

In an unusual condition, Whitmore was also required to report any romantic relationships to police. He then had to get “consent” if his partner had children under the age of 14.

Brodsky had tried to fight the public release, but his bid for an injunction against Toronto police was denied by Paisley.

The judge admitted the case raised a “serious constitutional issue” involving someone’s privacy rights versus protection of the public. And while releasing information about Whitmore wouldn’t necessarily reduce his risk of re-offending, he said there’s also no evidence to suggest it would make the situation worse.

“On this motion, the applicant was not persuasive on the issue of whether he will suffer irreparable harm if the application is refused, on the record before me. The press release proposed appears to be factual and accurate. It does not disclose the residence of the applicant on its face. It is similar to press releases previously disclosed in relation to this applicant as referred to in the affidavit filed on his behalf, and no harm befell the applicant when that similar material was disclosed,” Paisley wrote in his decision.

“There is, I am satisfied, some risk to any individual of vigilante action taken by unreasonable or irrational members of the public, but that is not the test. Reviewing the proposed press release, there is nothing in it and nothing suggested in it that, in itself, would arouse public anger. It appears to me that the risk that the applicant is concerned about is the possibility that there may be irresponsible media coverage relating to the applicant. But that is not the matter that is before me.

“On this material, I am satisfied that the proposed press release is a reasonable remedy authorized within the parameters of the regulation which is challenged. I consider as of some probative value the fact that in this very case as a result of publicity, another offence that the offender concedes he was involved in was discovered. Not all publicity is necessarily bad publicity as far as the public is concerned, and in that instance, the media coverage of this offender’s actions apparently resulted in justice being done in relation to a separate issue, and I find it to be relevant and significant that in spite of the fact that a previous media release was issued by the Police Services Board in relation to this applicant and the media coverage that resulted, there is no suggestion that the accused was subjected to any threat, or any hint of a threat by anyone, as a result of that publicity.

“While I recognize the possibility that inflammatory coverage or even reasonably balanced coverage could result in vigilantism, I cannot assume that is going to occur. The onus is on the applicant; and in relation to a risk of serious harm, I wouldn’t put that test as being very high. While the court will protect, and should protect, the interest of an individual who reasonably is concerned that he will be harmed on proper evidence, I don’t see a reasonable risk that this applicant will be subjected to any realistic risk of harm on the record before me.

“I appreciate that a press release is a rather blunt instrument as a tool. It cannot target only those persons who have children who might be at risk, but it is the instrument that is available and I cannot, on the basis of the submissions I have heard, or the record before me, conclude that there is another instrument reasonably available that would serve the purpose of protecting the public. The protection of the public, particularly the children and the parents of children who might reasonable be at risk as a result of an unrehabilitated pedophile released to an unwary community, is obvious.”

•••••

Brodsky suggested police should be focused on making Whitmore’s transition back to society as smooth as possible.

“The best thing the police could do would be to get him a job, get him an apartment and protect his security because it will be impossible for him to do it on his own. He will constantly have to look over his shoulder and worry about vigilante justice,” Brodsky told the National Post. “The more information that’s given out, the worse it gets [for him].”

Brodsky filed an interesting affidavit from Dr. Hy Bloom, a forensic psychiatrist with a private practice in Toronto. Bloom’s opinions were based on his reading of “scholarly literature” pertaining to the issue of community notification of sex offenders.

“Community notification of the release of sex offenders, on a large and systematic scale, is a relatively recent phenomenon. There is a regrettable lack of research findings into the effect of the practice, both on offenders and the community. I bring to the issue no in-depth study or personal research but rather my familiarity with the patterns and needs of sexual offenders and an ability to digest academic literature on the subject and evaluate its credibility and significance against the background of my own experience and training,” Bloom began.

Bloom cited a 1998 study out of Wisconsin which looked at 30 sex offenders who had been released from jail and subject to community notifications. They were all deemed “Level 3” offenders, which is the highest risk category in the U.S.

“Many of the subjective reactions of the offenders were as might be expected. They report embarrassment, sometimes bitterness, and a sense that the notification process was irrelevant to the likelihood of their re-offending. The authors note that ‘all but one of the interviewed subjects stated that the community notification process had adversely affected their transition from prison to the outside world. Most also spoke of how community notification had caused distress for families and loved ones, and alienation from former friends,” said Bloom.

He said publicity through news coverage posed the biggest challenge to offenders. Surprisingly, only one person reported so-called vigilante activity from enraged citizens.

“For many, the news media was to blame for treating all sex offenders as though they were sexual predators and inaccurately reporting and sensationalizing their crimes,” said Bloom.

One offender was quoted as follows: “If you have any familiarity with links and patterns of the cycle of sexual offence, much of it revolves around an individual being under pressure and his behaviour under pressure. Well, there is no more pressure than being exploited by the media, the people you work with, the people you live with, relatives, and so the pressure is constantly there,” the man said.

Bloom said the authors of the study concluded that “public disclosure of the crime may undermine the therapy of offender and victim alike.”

Bloom noted in his affidavit a similar, more comprehensive 1995 study done in Washington State – the first jurisdiction with a community notification statute – that followed released sex offenders for 54-months.

“The study identified no statistically significant difference in the arrest rates among Level 3 offenders subject to notification and a similar group not subject to notification over the 54 months. The authors did, however, detect one very significant finding – those recidivists subject to community notification were arrested for their new crimes much earlier than the comparison group,” said Bloom.

“It is unfortunately difficult to interpret this finding. It might be argued that the pressures of community antagonism led to earlier re-offending; it might also be suggested that community notification led to faster identification and arrest of recidivists. Contrary, perhaps, to expectations, most recidivism was for non-sexual offences. In this most important area – actual reduction of crime – one might particularly welcome further, conclusive research,” he said.

Bloom concluded by saying stability may be the key to successfully controlling and rehabilitating a high-risk offender.

“It serves to reduce stress, thereby lowering the risk for re-offending. Offenders with a secure residence, steady employment and personal support are much more likely to do well after release than those who struggle for the provision of personal necessities, without a network of encouragement and guidance,” said Bloom.

He said the 1998 Wisconsin study found that housing and employment “have become nearly impossible for sex offenders” – and even more so when their release into the community is publicized.

“The notoriety created by the notification process has resulted in the inability or loss of residence and employment. Sex offenders continually worry about harassment, over having to move again, and about the possibility of placement in a correctional facility in lieu of residence in the community. They are deeply concerned also about the stress on their families and the loss of relationships resulting from community notification. This network of supportive relationships is critical reintegration,” the authors wrote in their summary.

•••••

TORONTO, ONTARIO

OCTOBER 16, 2000

Police and justice officials had struck what they felt was a fair compromise.

Whitmore’s exact address would remain private – in exchange for a general warning that he had moved into the Eglinton and Royal York area of the city.

“I think this is the best balance,” Staff Inspector Ray Pilkington of the Toronto police sex crimes unit told reporters.

“I know this individual and his track record. If we released his address, he would go underground and disappear. At least this way I know where he is and can keep an eye on him. I think there is much less chance of him reoffending.”

Pilkington said giving away Whitmore’s exact address would likely create a mob-like atmosphere.

“This is much better than driving him out of town and passing the problem on to another community. I know people don’t want him here but at least we will know what he is doing. This way we have some control,” he said.

That wasn’t good enough for many residents – especially since there were many daycares and schools in the area.

Many were vowing to do some amateur detective work, find where Whitmore was living and release it to the masses – including one angry city councillor. Mario Giansante, whose Kingsway Humber ward encompasses where Whitmore was now living, said the public deserves to know.

Whitmore’s lawyers said justice officials had made the right call and pleaded for public calm.

Steve Skurka noted a recent story out of England in which several innocent people were attacked in the streets because they resembled pedophiles whose names and addresses had been published by a tabloid newspaper.

He cited other cases across Canada where similar vigilante attacks had occurred, including an Edmonton sex offender who was run out of town after residents camped on his doorstep and taunted him with slurs.

“(Whitmore’s) certainly grateful that his address is not going to be known, although he is still fearful,” Skurka told reporters.

“We are working to get him the treatment he needs and get him on the path of rehabilitation. I am very, very pleased with the decision. It’s responsible action on behalf of the police. It’s an attempt to calm the waters and avoid vigilante justice.”

Yet the waters were anything but calm. Citizens began flooding local radio call-in shows, with many suggesting Whitmore lost his right to privacy years ago when he began preying on innocent children. Others suggested that maybe Whitmore should go live in the same neighbourhood as his lawyers.

Police could sense the panic and decided to call a community meeting to let residents share their concerns and voice their frustrations.

They released the following news bulletin on Oct. 17.

“The Toronto Police sexual assault squad...have made arrangements for an information session to be held Wednesday October 18 at 7:30 p.m. at the Richview Collegiate located at 1738 Islington Avenue. This information session is for the immediate community who may be interested in discussing any safety issues as a result of the release of convicted pedophile Mr. Peter Robert Whitmore. Mr. Whitmore has been released from custody after completing his sentence and is now bound by a series of conditions restricting his access to children. Mr. Whitmore has taken residence in the Royal York Road and Eglinton Avenue area. Members of the community are welcome to attend this information session from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. to address any safety concerns they may have regarding Mr. Whitmore’s release.”

Meanwhile, Whitmore was planning his next move.