chapter eighteen

Peter Whitmore was full of shit. At least that was the conclusion reached by his oldest brother following review of Whitmore’s so-called biography.

“Most of the things he mentions are not true, although he may have gone over them so much that he’s actually started to believe that they were true,” said the man – who now lives in the United States, has distanced himself from his family and doesn’t want to be named.

He wanted to set the record straight. Most concerning was Peter’s claim that he had raped him when they were younger.

“If this had happened it would have been brought to someone’s attention. I didn’t really associate with the others since I had my own friends and hung out with them. If he was orally assaulted by me then there would be something he remembers about the description of my private parts, since I am not normal down there,” the brother said.

Peter was the youngest of four children. Their father was a clerk in the Air Force who frequently moved the family around. He separated from their mother in about 1970 – prior to Peter even being born. He quickly faded from the picture and played little role in any of his children’s lives.

“Our mother was a little different. I didn’t really notice much until I grew up and saw some of the childish behaviour,” the brother said.

“I was the one that took care of the house and did the dishes and cooked the meals and did the laundry so that everyone else would eat and have clothes to wear. My mother didn’t change at all over the years and was still a child in a woman’s body.”

He disputes many of Peter’s claims, including the allegation he was taken from his parents at two weeks old.

“He was almost a year old when we were taken and he wouldn’t remember how it all went down,” said the brother. “It was my aunt and the police that took us from our mother as at the time she was unfit to care for us.”

The man said he and his sister – the second oldest child – were being abused by their mother’s boyfriend.

“Peter and the rest of us were all placed in one home for roughly two years. Then our mother kidnapped us and so the saga continued. Peter again was too young to remember this. We were then retrieved again by our aunt and the police and put into another home, a friend of hers took us in,” said the brother.

He eventually moved to Germany with an uncle, while Peter and his other two siblings were kept together in another Canadian placement. All of the children continued to have limited supervised visits with their mother, he said.

The brother scoffs at Whitmore’s claim he suffered a childhood brain injury. “As far as I know there never was one,” he said.

He also was stunned by Peter’s claim that he was “sent abroad” on weekends and holidays to be used in the sex trade.

In his biography, Peter claimed he got caught “exploring” the body of a young girl whose parents had taken him the Whitmore children in. Peter claims they were both nine years old at the time and he was beaten and hospitalized because of what he did.

“This family did not have a daughter,” said the brother. “And he was never beaten by this family. Since I was the oldest I was taught to take care of them at any cost.”

Peter also claimed to have beaten his older brother up on several occasions.

“I was his protector and as far as him beating me up that would be impossible since I was twice the size of him back then and after everything that happened to me I was actually considered a hard-ass,” he said.

The brother also denied Peter’s claim that their other male sibling “tried to kill me several times”, including an incident where he tried to strangle him with a rope.

“Peter was at home, and it was roughly eight or nine at night when this happened. He called the police and made an accusation that my other brother had tied him up with a rope. This was a lie. Peter had been sleeping on a quilt and the marks from the quilt had left marks on him. The marks went away very vividly since I had just returned home with my girlfriend and saw the police taking my brother away in handcuffs. I was beating the hell out of the cop car when they took him away,” said the brother.

Peter claimed he later “withdrew” criminal charges against his brother.

“He never did. They were dropped once the police did their investigation. My brother then moved out of the house and swore not to return. His life became a living hell after that with numerous run-ins with the law,” he said.

The brother said Peter’s claim that he was used “as a pawn between my parents” is also laughable.

“Now this would have been funny since our father had nothing or wanted nothing to do with any of us,” he said.

The brother denied they ever learned that their mother’s boyfriend had molested their sister, as Peter claimed.

“If this would have happened I would have killed him with my bare hands,” he said.

Peter also claimed his brother got a gun and was going to kill the man, but changed his mind and gave him the gun instead.

“Who in their right mind would give Peter a gun,” he asked. “Although, our mother’s ex did have a rifle under his bed locked up with a trigger guard and case.”

The brother said Peter seemed to be living in a “fantasy world” as a child and believed “everyone was out to hurt him.”

“Peter was, I believe, 17 when he finally left home. Not by running away but by moving out. Our mother had taken up with another guy with whom she is still with to this day. I had my outs with him as well when it came to Peter getting punished by him. Nobody was going to lay a hand on Peter when I was around. (The boyfriend) was roughly 200 pounds and a large man but I didn’t back down and he respected that,” he said.

The brother also wanted to clear the air about Peter’s bizarre relationship with Terry, who had lived with him in the early 1990s.

“She lived in Canada and he met her through a prison letter exchange program, like a pen pal. She was in a wheelchair and was roughly twice his age. I met her once and that was enough for me,” he said.

The brother also takes issue with Peter’s claim that he’s fathered three children.

“As far as the family knows, he has no children,” he said.

He doesn’t doubt Peter was prostituting himself, considering he used to visit their sister by showing up in a limousine. Peter would also talk big, including plans to buy an apartment building and “striking it rich.”

“There are so many stories he’s told over the years that have come back to bite him. His life was not as traumatic as he likes people to think,” said the brother, who hasn’t spoken to Peter in many years.

•••••

After what seemed like a non-stop barrage of media coverage spanning several years, Peter Whitmore finally had the peace of mind he claimed to have wanted for so long. Now serving his three-year prison term, Whitmore gradually faded into obscurity as the country’s attention turned to other more pressing matters.

However, debate was still raging over the way high-risk offenders were being handled. Statistics Canada released an eye-opening report in 2003 that offered some light at the end of what many saw as a very dark tunnel.

Despite all the outrage over paroled criminals, Statistics Canada found that the number of inmates being forced to serve their entire sentence was actually climbing. In 2002, 257 federal offenders were not given any reduction of their sentence. They served every last minute – just like Whitmore had done with his five-year sentence years earlier.

The number was up substantially from the 215 inmates who were “gated” – the term used to describe those who aren’t given statutory release after doing two-thirds of their sentence – in 2001. In 2000, 209 inmates were held for their full sentences.

Could it be that public outrage was making a difference?

The federal government had passed legislation in 1986 that allowed for inmates to be kept behind bars for their entire sentence, provided prison officials could show the prisoner posed as substantial risk of violent re-offending.

The new law was introduced during an emergency summer session of Parliament, in response to a wave of murders and violent attacks that had been committed that year by paroled offenders. The federal government estimated at the time that about 50 inmates a year would be affected. In fact, the number quickly swelled.

The all-time high was in 1996, when 484 inmates were denied any form of parole. But it began a steady decline the following year before beginning what now appeared to be a slow climb. There was no doubt that keeping a dangerous prisoner behind bars for their entire sentence was an effective way of ensuring that person can’t re-offend for a longer period of time.

But the jury was still out as to whether the move had any significant longer-term impact on crime reduction. Many experts said it did not.

John Vandoremalen, a spokesman for the parole board, told the Toronto Star “it doesn’t serve the interests of public safety, in the long run, for them to go all the way to the end of their sentence and be released cold turkey onto the street.”

He noted a 1996 internal study which found the re-offending rates between those kept behind bars for their entire sentence was 12 per cent. By comparison, the rate only increased to 14 per cent for those who got early release.

Allan Manson, a Queen’s University law professor and expert on prison and parole issues, told the Star he believes public opinion is playing a role in parole decisions.

“I don’t doubt there are some instances when the parole board is very concerned about how they are perceived in public, and that becomes an important influence on decision-making,” he said.

Dan Brodsky, Whitmore’s long-term lawyer, quickly waded into the discussion. He noted that forcing Whitmore to serve every day of his previous five-year term did nothing to stop him from re-offending. And he predicted justice officials were going to make the same mistake again by keeping his client behind bars for the duration of his current three-year term.

Brodsky said that would simply leave Whitmore back in the same old position of being back on the streets, without any type of structure of support. He said the key issue is treatment, something Whitmore was still having trouble obtaining despite the high-profile nature of his case.

“This is a guy who really needs to be released on parole,” Brodsky told the Toronto Sun. “It would be in everybody’s best interest for him to live under supervision and be gradually released rather than just kicked back onto the streets because we know it doesn’t work.”

Chuck Cadman, a Conservative Alliance MP from British Columbia who was serving as vice-chairman of the parliamentary justice committee, admitted keeping prisoners locked up longer carried a steep financial cost. Federal figures show it costs about $70,000 a year to keep an inmate in jail, versus about $15,000 a year to supervise them in the community.

“When someone re-offends the community just goes wacko, and rightfully so, saying ‘We don’t want these guys’,” Cadman told the Star. “What price are we going to put on a victim’s life?”

•••••

Peter Whitmore had finally completed his first intensive treatment program – but he wasn’t exactly getting glowing remarks from those in charge of treatment.

Yes, he’d gone through the high-intensive sex offender group program at the Regional Psychiatric Centre, finishing up his requirements in March 2003. But many wondered whether he’d actually learned anything.

Just weeks earlier, a routine search of his jail cell had uncovered a familiar yet disturbing sight. Whitmore was keeping a notebook and had a long list of websites listed that contained child pornography. He swore to prison officials the notes were from years ago and not an indication of any pending or future plans.

Jim Blackner, the executive director of the treatment centre, wrote a detailed report on Whitmore later that year. Among the many highlights:

Blackner said: “The circumstances of these offences (previous criminal convictions) are of paramount concern. Not only do they demonstrate his continued lack of respect for the rule of law but they also have direct implications regarding his offence cycle, which continues to result in sexual offences against innocent children. It is clearly evident in the file material that Mr. Whitmore’s criminal history has a well-established pattern of sexual offences against children.”

Regarding his most recent conviction, Blackner said: “The context of his current offence of failing to comply with a recognizance becomes much more relevant and troubling. Mr. Whitmore has already demonstrated a pattern of sexual violence against children. However, despite any controls the court has imposed, he has simply disregarded them, instead placing his own sexual gratification and impulses at the forefront. His own admission regarding his sexual preferences, and the age of his current and prospective victims speak volumes regarding the level of risk in this case. It is very apparent that Mr. Whitmore has very limited insight into his sexual behaviour. He continues to see these acts as consensual and that the victims were ‘willing participants’. In addition, he has no appreciation for the psychological damage imposed upon his victims. In essence, his act of befriending, studying, fantasizing and engaging young children into sexual contact appears to override any sense of what is moral or legal.”

On attempts to reduce Whitmore’s risk through programming, Blackner wrote: “Clearly any attempt to control Mr. Whitmore’s sexual deviance through incarceration, court orders or probation has failed miserably. He continues to demonstrate a poor attitude and a total disregard towards any mechanisms that may assist in controlling the risk of prevent the initiation of an offence cycle that has led to violent sexual offences. Mr. Whitmore has been participating in the high intensity sex offender program at RTC, however a verbal account of his performance provided by his psychologist indicates that ‘Mr. Whitmore has made minimal gains as a result of the program’. In fact, during treatment Mr. Whitmore refused to partake in arousal reconditioning simply because he did not wish to stop his fantasies regarding children.”

Finally, Blackner summarized the bleak outlooks as follows: “Essentially, Mr. Whitmore is an untreated homosexual pedophile who has established a clear pattern of sexual offending against children. Any previous attempts at managing this behaviour through treatment or imposed conditions has only led to further convictions involving more innocent victims or behaviour that characterizes the onset of his offence cycle. Mr. Whitmore’s risk for re-offending in a sexual manner in particular, is high, and his own admission regarding these sexual preferences and desires only exacerbates the risk should he be released prior to warrant expiry.”

•••••

Whitmore’s treating psychologist, Carey Sturgeon, filed his own report in late 2003. His main focus was Whitmore’s “dangerous thought patterns.”

“Mr. Whitmore exhibited several cognitive distortions related to perceiving himself as a victim based on his personal history of sexual abuse. He also denied and minimized victim harm using distortions regarding prostitutes (e.g. “the prostitutes enjoy the sex that they are paid for”, “I am helping prostitutes by getting them off the street and having them work for only me instead of hundreds of other people each year”, “They are already dysfunctional, so it doesn’t matter if I use them”) and his sexually assaulting behaviours (e.g. “I am not hurting children by performing oral sex on them,” “I am not hurting them because I don’t beat them,” “I am not hurting them because they consent to it and they like it,” “I am not hurting them because I do nice things for them and treat them better than most people do”). He further exhibited distortions related to entitlement (e.g. “I am entitled to sex if I pay for it,” “Everything I want I can take”), the sexualisation of children (e.g. “Children can act seductively,” “Children understand sex,” “Children enjoy sex”), and the fulfillment of his adult emotional needs in relationships with children (e.g. “Children aged 11 and older can give me love, attention and support that I want,” “Children will not reject or criticize my feelings or sexual desires”). Moreover, he exhibited nonsexual antisocial cognitive distortions (e.g. “It’s only to blackmail people to get what I want,” “Everyone is corruptible,” “Everyone is for sale at a price,” “I must take revenge”). Overall, Mr. Whitmore was proficient at challenging intellectually his distortions related to sexual offending; however, he did not integrate these challenges at an emotional level, as he reported that he did not believe that the challenges applied to him. That is, he was reluctant to accept that his sexual deviancy was problematic apart from it being against the law.”

Sturgeon also raised serious questions about Whitmore’s intention to change his behaviour.

“Mr. Whitmore failed to identify specific release plans or long-term goals. Moreover, Mr. Whitmore had not yet integrated his understanding of relapse prevention into his behaviour, as evident by his ongoing use of deviant sexual fantasies and refusal to participate in arousal reconditioning. Further, it is unclear whether Mr. Whitmore will be motivated to implement his relapse prevention plan upon release given his entrenched belief that his sexually deviant behaviour is acceptable. In addition, although he indicated that his primary deterrent for re-offending was the potential for his designation as a dangerous offender and indeterminate incarceration, he also reported that he preferred incarceration to living in the community. He later clarified his position that he would rather be released for a few months every few years than be incarcerated indefinitely as a dangerous offender.”

Sturgeon offered a detailed glimpse into therapy, portraying Whitmore as anything but a model student.

“He was antagonistic in group sessions (due apparently to the presence of the male facilitator given his distrust of adult males), reluctant to address treatment issues in individual sessions, and did not complete his homework during the early stages of treatment. However, when he was confronted regarding his lack of progress, his performance improved... Mr. Whitmore demonstrated a significant intellectual understanding of most treatment-related concepts. Moreover, he integrated his treatment gains concerning anger management and problem-solving into his behaviour, as evident by a reduction in reports in his conflict with some staff. However, he failed to integrate his understanding of his offence cycle and relapse prevention into his behaviour, as evidence by his ongoing endorsements of cognitive distortions related to sexual offending, use of deviant sexual fantasies, refusal to participate in arousal reconditioning and reluctance to address issues related to his meeting his intimacy needs with children. Obstacles to Mr. Whitmore’s progress in treatment included his lack of motivation to address issues related to his sexual deviancy, his pathological lying and his emotional immaturity.”

As a result, Sturgeon suggested that further treatment would simply be a waste of valuable time and resources.

“Mr. Whitmore would be unlikely to benefit from further treatment to address his sexual offending at this time. However, if he were to become motivated to address issues related to his sexual offending in a forthright manner in the future, it would be necessary to reassess his suitability for treatment,” he concluded.

The ball was back in Whitmore’s court. And the dangerous game was about to continue.

•••••

As the country prepared to celebrate Christmas, Peter Whitmore was apparently feeling homesick. Still stuck behind bars in Ontario, Whitmore wrote a letter to prison officials asking once again to be transferred to B.C. to serve the rest of his sentence. He also appeared confident that he would be granted early parole.

Whitmore’s letter, dated Dec. 23, 2003, was also copied to his lawyer, his aunt and Toronto police.

“This letter will confirm a request that I have made several times before. It is my request to be transferred to British Columbia, Canada, where I intent to reside upon my release.

I wish to ask the Correctional Services of Canada and the institution which I will be released from in British Columbia to assist in my reintegration of that province.

For the record, if I cannot be transferred to British Columbia, prior to my release from custody, I thought it would be appropriate for you to have in writing from me, my intentions.

Upon release, it is my intention to travel to British Columbia and take up residence in that province. Accordingly, would you please ensure that whoever needs to know this information be informed as soon as possible? Also, that all necessary files be transferred to British Columbia.

The time for my release is growing rapidly near. In the past it has taken quite a bit of effort to find a place to live. I would suggest that we begin working on that issue A.S.A.P.”

•••••

MARCH 5, 2004

Evidently, Peter Whitmore’s release wasn’t as “rapidly near” as he thought it was. Early parole was being denied.

“The board is satisfied that, if released, you are likely to commit a sexual offence involving a child before the expiration of the sentence you are now serving according to law,” they said in written reasons.

Whitmore had actually contributed to the decision, admitting he didn’t have any kind of release plan in place. He actually requested an adjournment for his hearing, saying he needed more time “to canvass potential release plans.”

The parole board refused, saying they were governed by law to make a decision at least 90 days before a prisoner’s statutory release date. Since Whitmore was fast approaching that deadline, the hearing had to proceed.

The parole board had been given a mountain of evidence regarding Whitmore’s continued risk, much of which was recapped in their decision.

They noted Whitmore’s longstanding request to be moved out west to do his time and said a transfer was likely going to be granted within the next few weeks.

“The board agrees that this would be a prudent move in your case given that you clearly have positive family support in another region,” they wrote.

The parole board also expressed concern about the February 2003 search of Whitmore’s cell that uncovered the notebook filled with child porn addresses.

“You claim that these addresses were written long ago and they had been in your notebook for some time. The board cannot conclude that there is reliable and persuasive information to indicate that you are planning to commit another sexual offence involving a child, however, the board notes that there is certainly ample information to suggest that you are still consumed by deviant sexual fantasies and cognitive distortions,” they wrote.

“In conclusion, your risk continues to be rated as high, even after having completed a high intensity sex offender program. Your criminal history demonstrates that you are either unwilling or unable to abide by your conditions of release and you have not proposed any viable release plans at this juncture. You are hopeful that you will be able to develop release plans in another region where you have community support. The board agrees that this would be the most prudent course in your case.”

•••••

AGASSIZ, BRITISH COLUMBIA

Peter Whitmore had gotten his wish. Federal prison officials had green-lighted his request to go west, moving him to Mountain Institution. The medium-security federal penitentiary is about an hour’s drive east of Vancouver and specializes in housing inmates who require protective custody.

Sex offenders are always at the top of that list, given their place in the prison pecking order as the low men on the totem pole. Mountain had recently undergone major renovations, expanding their prisoner capacity to 480 and replacing their old, dormitory style living quarters with several new, modernized buildings.

Whitmore’s transition to Mountain had been smooth and seemingly non-eventful, and he was acutely aware of the dwindling time left on his sentence. He was getting visits from his aunt, Lynn Hopkins, and appeared pleased to have “come home” following several tumultuous years out East.

Perhaps the change of scenery really was going to make a difference.