chapter fifteen

With no defence for his actions, Peter Whitmore once again found himself backed up against a wall. He appeared in court on March 9, 2001, pleading guilty to his latest breach charge and receiving another 12 months in jail followed by three years of supervised probation.

Whitmore knew he was going back into custody, a realization that apparently had him throwing a bit of a pity party for himself.

His new case manager summarized Whitmore’s return to the prison system in a report:

“Mr. Whitmore was initially very reluctant to participate in treatment. His first several weeks were spent in his bed area and his dorm. He would take bed rest at every opportunity,” the case manager wrote.

“During this time Mr. Whitmore completed his assigned clean-up responsibilities. He did not associate very much with peers or staff and appeared to have in place treatment avoidant strategies.”

However, Whitmore’s behaviour seemed to change slightly for the better when he was confronted by staff in the spring of 2001 about his lack of participation.

“This appeared to motivate him to begin speaking with different peers,” the report stated.

Whitmore took a brief step backwards when his request to get a job working in the library was rejected. Prison officials were well aware of his previous obsession with magazines and catalogues and wisely elected to keep him far away from any potential pictures.

Whitmore went so far as to submit a request to be moved to another facility.

“He was confronted about this behaviour and stated he had great difficulty saying what he wanted and how he was feeling. Within the discussion about the transfer he stated he did not really want to transfer, however felt very frustrated and hurt that he could not work in the library, since he felt he was doing a decent job and it made him feel good. Mr. Whitmore said he would submit a request for transfer every time he became upset about something,” the report stated.

Whitmore did attend some jailhouse meetings and peer reviews but often remained silent and sitting on the sidelines. Paranoia appeared to be the main reason...

“Mr. Whitmore was burdened with not trusting anyone, staff or other residents. He believed people wanted to gather information that at some later time could be used against him, or could be used to hurt him.”

Whitmore was also confronted about some of the wild stories he was telling about his life that stretched the boundaries of imagination. He admitted to exaggerating or outright lying about parts of his background.

Despite losing his bid to work in the library, Whitmore did manage to get his hands of some pictures of young boys. He was caught and given a “misconduct” which went on his permanent record – just the latest in a long list of such sanctions.

Whitmore agreed to sign a “treatment and behaviour contract” vowing to give a better effort, and prison officials noted positive changes as spring turned to summer and Whitmore’s potential release date got closer.

“His contribution to groups began to improve. He was making a point of talking about what he was doing in his various groups and a little about what he was learning. He did not speak about his feelings. Mr. Whitmore appeared disconnected from his feelings. He is familiar with anger, anxiety and depression. When group discussions involved feelings, Mr. Whitmore would usually not participate.”

There were occasional setbacks as Whitmore’s behaviour continued to be somewhat erratic.

“Mr. Whitmore would engage in behaviour that would focus a lot of attention to him, and consume a lot of peer time and staff time,” his report stated.

Whitmore got his second and third misconducts of this stint when he threatened a fellow inmate who confronted him about his behaviour. He was also placed briefly in segregation and put on notice that further screw-ups would have consequences.

“It is believed Mr. Whitmore learned a lot about himself and his offence behaviour while in treatment. He was committed to attending the programs he was in. He did the homework that was asked of him,” said the report.

“He is in the early stages of treatment. His lack of recognizing and expressing feelings prohibited him from exploring empathy. Any victim impact work was done from an ‘I think’ perspective. It is believed that Whitmore has repressed a lot of his feelings, and this interferes with him being able to confront and change his core beliefs in a healthy manner. This is a process that would require time and trust.”

Whitmore also participated in a “self-esteem training group” but struggled, claiming the work confused him.

Perhaps most importantly, he took part in a sexual offender workshop, one of the few times he stayed in an entire program without leaving.

“Here he worked to develop the cycle of his abuse and this was done at a beginning level. It did not manifest a great deal of insight. He did learn how easily his smaller actions would escalate into committing a crime.”

Whitmore also attended the Relapse Prevention Group for sex offenders and came to two conclusions about himself, according to prison officials.

“He discovered that his two strongest seemingly unimportant decisions are driving aimlessly and going to an arcade. He identified his high-risk factors as collecting photos or cut-outs of young boys, buying friends and spending money foolishly,” the review states.

•••••

NOVEMBER 10, 2001

Just when it seemed like Whitmore might be ready for a breakthrough....he was being sent back into the community. Having served two-thirds of his year-long penalty, Whitmore was eligible for early release.

The decision came despite strong concerns from prison officials that although Whitmore had been making progress, there was still plenty of work left to do.

“Mr. Whitmore was not (in treatment) long enough to have benefitted significantly from the treatment available. At the time of his discharge, he was only in the initial stages of identifying, accepting and exploring his issues,” a November corrections report stated. “As such, he should not be considered to have completed the treatment program.”

Most concerning, Whitmore was back on the streets without developing any kind of detailed relapse prevention plan or even having a structured release plan ready to go. It was a familiar scene to many, one that likely had a predictable ending.

“Mr. Whitmore was initially resistive to participating in treatment, yet as he developed relationships with staff and peers he became more conductive to this process. He acknowledged that when he came in, he came with an attitude. His overall participation and progress was at a beginning stage, lack of trust being a main issue in his therapy. He did manage to work through his attitude problem and become more serene. Mr. Whitmore indicated that he did feel a level of trust with some individuals,” the report concluded.

Finally, Whitmore left prison officials with some parting thoughts as he walked out of jail to face an unknown future.

“Only I am responsible for my life. Only I am responsible for what I do or don’t do,” he said.

•••••

Peter Whitmore’s aunt, Lynn Hopkins, had come out swinging. The retired school teacher was angry by the latest round of media reports about her nephew. And unlike the past, when she’d tried her best to ignore it, Hopkins decided this time the best offence was a good defence.

And so she put pen to paper, sending off a letter to the Toronto Star regarding a story they’d published days earlier about Whitmore’s pending release. She painted a dramatically different picture of Whitmore than what had been told in court, psychiatric reports, parole reviews and jailhouse documents.

In contrast to the picture painted by the Toronto press, my nephew Peter Whitmore is NOT public Enemy #1.

All those who really know him will tell you that.

I challenge the label as a pedophile based on a few non-violent incidents. What Peter has done was wrong but the punishment has far exceeded the crime, especially in view of Peter’s background and immaturity at the time of the incidents.

Peter was taken from his mother when he was 2 weeks old. Some of his problems arise from a bad placement until age 2. He thrived in an excellent foster home from age 2-10. He suffered head injuries in a serious car accident at age 2 and another while a teenager.

From the start of Elementary school to Grade 9 when he dropped out of school for environmental reasons, he was always a special needs special education student. He survived his teenage years living on the streets. His main thrust has been trying to earn a living or to make money. Sex has NOT been a major concern to him. Experimentation and mistakes were made by him when he was the equivalent in maturity of a fourteen year old. As a former Ontario Elementary school teacher for many years I feel competent to make that assessment.

I have known Peter throughout his life. I have helped him when I could. Due to the other people in my life, I was unable to give him a home. When I can, I will. However, the constant harassment from the police and exaggeration and repetition in the media about Peter and, indirectly, of other family members naturally makes those who could help reluctant to step forward.

No one wants to be the centre of a negative media circus or public hanging. This has got to stop. Peter deserves a chance.

I want you to know that Peter was never a violent person as a child. Or as an adult. Another boy with him initiated the first incident. The inadequate parents in the second incident requested him to babysit the child. Peter did not abduct the child. He and his common law wife at the time babysat the child to earn money. Although the child stayed 4 days only one incident occurred. To spare the child’s appearance in court Peter was persuaded to plead guilty to obtain “better treatment by the court”

Family members were not advised, as promised, of the final court date. Medical evidence would not have convicted him.

The five year sentence has stretched into 8 years with 3 more years of probation to come due to a break of probation given under a court order for NO further crime. Peter has no sexual offences since 1993 but the penalty goes on and on.

(To escape this horrendous media publicity, after his release from prison in 1999, all time served, Peter went to Mexico for a chance to have a normal life again. As is customary in our family, Peter did volunteer work there - driving ambulance and teaching English to mixed classes of parents and children eager to learn English. Peter never was with the children alone. Prison officials had advised him he wouldn’t know for sure if he had a problem with children until he had an established record of no offences against children while out of prison. Peter felt this would prove he did not. Instead this was used against him. A phony notice about him was sent to Mexico and Texas by Toronto Police.

Peter empathized with three boys he met (two others had gone out to eat) and having endured life on the streets, paid for their room and intended to return to his boarding place for the night. When you live downtown and you’re lonely, you associate with street people for companionship. No charges were laid out but it was considered a breach of the probation.

I know of killers who got less punishment than Peter. Peter is a kind and gentle person. It is not in his normal personality to use force or violence. He does not drink alcohol or take non prescription drugs, or even use bad language. Peter has personality problems (fear, aloneness, presentation) which need to be addressed but I’m 99% certain he won’t sexually reoffend.

Some of these problems are due to life in prison. However, during this years in prison, Peter has matured to the equivalent of early twenties age level. At the present time he loves to read novels and this has helped his development. He has finally accessed and completed the necessary sexual offender program.

Prison is a difficult and dangerous place. It qualifies a cruel and emotional punishment. At times it is abuse. I recognize its need in society but sometimes it is not the best answer

If Peter cannot live freely in the community, some community alternative housing or half-way house must be provided. Assistance in readjusting to society and fatherly advice and guidance would be helpful. Peter has accepted his punishment for his youthful errors in judgement and deserves a chance to have a life.

I’ve always been proud to be a Canadian. I have done many thousands of hours of volunteer work over the past 40 years. Others in my extended family have also served their communities excessively for years.

My father, Peter’s grandfather, fought for 3.5 years in Europe in WW2 giving his life for our country in Italy in December 1943

It hurts and I find it hard to believe that my country can legally treat Peter and our family in this unjust manner.

Please stop the harassment by police and exaggeration and repetition and inaccuracies by the media and help Peter rebuild his life.

Thank you

Peter’s Aunt

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

• Peter’s sexual charges occurred when his mental age (maturity) equivalent to 14 or 15 years. He has matured considerably when incarcerated.

• Head Injury from car accident at age 2 (Near Newmarket)

• Peter’s biological mother was developmentally handicapped and patient at Royal Ottawa Hospital

• Peter was a Special Education student throughout school. Completed Grade 8. He has learned much from personal reading and life experiences. Moved often from 10 onwards, good home from age 2-10

• Non drinker

• No non-prescription drugs

• Constant fear for his life.

•••••

TORONTO, ONTARIO

DECEMBER 28, 2001

Just over six weeks after he’d been released from jail, Peter Whitmore was back in court. Only this time it wasn’t to face any new criminal allegations.

Police and justice officials were seeking to make history once again, asking a judge to slap Whitmore with an electronic monitoring device that would allow them to track his movements at all times. Specifically, they wanted to know every time Whitmore left his residence and hit the streets.

If successful, Whitmore would be the first person in Ontario to be outfitted with the tracking bracelet despite already serving his sentence. To date, only inmates out in the community on temporary releases were being monitored.

The Crown had sought a variation to Whitmore’s ongoing probation, saying he was a perfect candidate given his long track record of offending.

They filed their bid the day before Whitmore’s release.

“Mr. Whitmore is scheduled to be released from custody on November 10th, 2001, following eight months of incarceration and treatment. He has not made substantive improvement and continues to present a large risk to public safety and as a result, we need to know where he is all the time,” the Crown wrote in court documents.

Whitmore was fighting the application, saying it would be an invasion of privacy. His lawyer, Dan Brodsky, called the move a “scathing indictment” of the entire justice system, claiming officials were now trying to cover for the fact they offered little in the way of effective treatment and programming to Whitmore while he was in custody.

Justice Patrick Sheppard had reserved his decision to this day after hearing two days worth of arguments which included evidence and testimony about Whitmore’s time spent behind bars.

And while Whitmore had seemingly stayed out trouble in the weeks that had now passed since his release, justice officials believed it was only a matter of time before he slipped up.

They wanted to be able to stop him before anyone else got hurt.

“Continuous home monitoring, the court has been told, requires a subject to wear a bracelet which communicates with a sensor operating on electrical current plugged in to a wall outlet. The device will trigger an alarm, or register a change in status if the subject who is wearing the bracelet is approximately more than one hundred feet radius away from the device,” Sheppard said as he began reading his decision.

“The monitoring device, if it is connected to a telephone line, can communicate that the subject is more than a hundred feet away to a Ministry operated computer in North Bay, Ontario. If there is no telephone line available, then the device can only store the information to be down-loaded by a person some hours or days after the event, requiring that individual to enter any building or location where the base monitoring device is located.”

Sheppard was told by government officials that changes were coming in Ontario that would soon see these types of applications being brought regularly against people on probation, like Whitmore, or even those serving conditional jail sentences in the community.

“The government acknowledges that Mr. Whitmore would be, in some case, a test of this change of policy. However, as the court indicated in its questioning of the Ministry’s official, continuous home monitoring will only tell the court where the subject is not. It will not tell the court, the probation officer, or the police where the subject is,” said Sheppard.

“To do so, requires the use of an equally available technology known as continuous offender tracking. Various methods of continuous offender tracking are available and in use. Probably, the best known to the general public is a global positioning system often used on high-end luxury motor vehicles, often used by hikers and campers, certainly used by mariners for navigational purposes. This is a fully mature and fully operational technology which can track a person to within a few meters. This is a technology that would continuously monitor any individual subject to it. It is not dependant on that subject having a permanent address, it is not dependant on that subject having a telephone line and it would, of course, deal with the monitoring of the other conditions of probation which are not subject of this variation application.”

Sheppard said his decision was a difficult one, with the court having to “balance public safety with the individual’s rights and his rehabilitation.”

“The court accepts and finds that both these systems intrude on an individual’s life. It becomes important at this point to remind ourselves that the notice initiating this application states that Mr. Whitmore ‘presents a large risk to public safety and, as a result, we need to know where he is at all times.’ Continuous home monitoring only tells us where he is not. After we learn where he is not, it would require good old traditional police work to find out where he is. Precisely the type of police work that resulted in Mr. Whitmore being detected as committing the offence to which he pled guilty before this court,” said Sheppard.

But continuous offender tracking would tell us with reasonable certainty where Mr. Whitmore is. And it would clearly aid in determining that the probation is being followed. However, that is not the system that the government is seeking.”

Sheppard was denying the application. But he wasn’t finished. He next took aim at the corrections system, questioning the early release of an untreated Whitmore back into the community.

“Mr. Whitmore is a pedophile. Statutory remission has resulted in his release when he was only half-way through the Ontario Correctional Institute’s program for pedophiles. He would have needed to be at the Institute for a further four to five months to complete the program. In part, this is because of bureaucratic slowness and resource constraints and lack of cooperation from other correctional authorities. It is not, as suggested by the Crown Attorney in his submissions, entirely the fault of Mr. Whitmore. But whose fault it is is not the important factor. The important factor is that the program has not been done and has not been completed,” said Sheppard.

Sheppard said he was stunned by one particular revelation about Whitmore’s treatment. Prison officials had started him on a drug therapy program for sex drive reduction – known more commonly as “chemical castration” – just one day before his release from custody.

Whitmore had given his consent to the treatment months earlier – as is required in Canada – yet no action was taken. And now Sheppard worried it may have been too late.

“Given that such a medication regime can have a therapeutic effect within one month, so the court was advised, it is likely that Mr. Whitmore was a greater threat on his release date, November 10th, than he needed to be,” he said.

Whitmore had continued to take the medication since his release and was seeing a doctor regularly, court was told.

“Seven weeks have passed, there is some reason to believe that he may be a lesser threat now than he was on November 10th, assuming at all times that he is compliant with that therapeutic program,” said Sheppard.

Sheppard cited other potential problems with the electronic monitoring bid; including the fact Whitmore was having trouble keeping a fixed address. He had already bounced between four different residences since his release, largely because of ongoing public backlash, a lack of community supports and no financial resources.

Although Whitmore wouldn’t be fitted with the ankle bracelet, Sheppard did agree with the Crown’s request to impose a nightly curfew against Whitmore. Sheppard told Whitmore he had to be off the streets between the hours of 6 p.m. to 6 a.m., a move that would hopefully help keep his behaviour in check. The curfew would last until April 2, 2002, and any breaches would land Whitmore back behind bars facing new criminal charges.

Outside court, Brodsky was declaring victory for his client – but said the entire sad, sordid affair should have all Canadians concerned.

“There have been a lot of screw-ups in this case,” Brodsky said.

And there were more to come.