Ontario’s court of appeal has set aside a conviction and ordered a new trial for a man who spent 23 years in prison for the murder of a 10-year-old girl in 1989 — but by all accounts, it’s unlikely that trial will ever happen.
It’s a complex case that includes recanted confessions as well as accusations of police conspiracy and mishandled evidence that the court of appeal re-examined after two former federal justice ministers said a “miscarriage of justice” likely occurred during the original trial of Timothy Rees, 62, more than 30 years ago.
Though the appeal court’s decision, which was released Thursday, flags several issues with the investigation and ensuing case — it does not contain any concrete answers as to who strangled 10-year-old Darla Thurrott in her Etobicoke bedroom in 1989.
Decades on from Thurrott’s death, Rees continues to maintain his innocence.
“I did not kill Darla. I am innocent and it had nothing to do with me,” Rees told reporters at the office of James Lockyer, a lawyer with the non-profit legal organization Innocence Canada, which represented him through the most recent court process.
“Since 1989, I’ve been labelled a killer, and I’m not,” he said, choking back tears.
The decision says Thurrott had gone to bed on March 16 of that year and was found dead the next morning, with a post-mortem report revealing she had been strangled.
No intruder broke in on night of murder
At the time of her murder, Darla had been living in a home with her mother Darlene Thurrott (who herself was later murdered in 1997), alongside her baby brother, her mother’s partner Bill Wilson, her mother’s friend Jim Venditti, and landlord James Raymer, who court documents say had “physical and intellectual disabilities,” including a limp and impaired use of one arm.
Thurrott and Wilson paid minimal rent to live in the home, which was left to Raymer after his mother died in 1982, in exchange for helping him with daily tasks like keeping the place clean and preparing meals.
Rees’s defence team argues it was Raymer who was responsible for Darla’s death.
Rees was a friend of Thurrott and Wilson, and was also staying at the home on the night of the murder. That evening, Thurrott, Wilson, Venditti and Rees all drank and partied together, with Thurrott and Wilson “repeatedly” snorting lines of cocaine in the second-floor washroom, according to the decision.
Darla went upstairs to bed around 9 p.m., while Rees lay down with a pillow and blanket on the floor of the nearby baby’s room around 10:30 p.m. Raymer, meanwhile, got home after working a shift at Taco Bell and a subsequent church choir practice around 11 p.m., and later went to bed.
At around 10 a.m. the next day, Thurrott became concerned that her daughter was sleeping too late — and that’s when she discovered her lifeless body.
No evidence of an intruder to the home was ever discovered, leaving police with a pool of five suspects who all slept there that night.
Rees, who was 25 at the time, was later charged and convicted of second-degree murder.
Defence suggests landlord was real killer
Court documents reveal detectives conducted multiple interviews with Rees before he eventually confessed to choking Darla. He later recanted that confession, saying he only gave it because he was in a vulnerable state and officers were badgering him.
Central to Rees’s successful court challenge is the fact that Toronto police had in their possession, but never disclosed, an audio recording of Raymer speaking with an officer right after the murder.
In that conversation, Raymer denied killing Darla, but did make some statements suggesting prior sexual contact with her. He also suggested he encountered her on the night of her death, but later denied that.
Rees’s legal team maintains that tape, alongside other evidence, points to Raymer as the real killer — though the court ruling is less certain.
“The subject of the recording, Mr. Raymer, is a person with intellectual challenges,” the decision reads. “The recording is replete with inconsistencies about Mr. Raymer’s contact with Darla on the night in question. And, much of the focus of the recording is possible sexual touching in a case where the murder had no sexual element to it.”
Still, the court ruled, the recording “ought to have been disclosed” — also noting it was improperly conducted by a marine unit constable who was seconded to Toronto police’s homicide unit for the winter months. That’s something the decision notes would “defy belief” for “anyone involved in criminal law for any period of time.”
Raymer, who was a Crown witness in the original trial, died back in 1999.
Crown mum on plans for any new trial
Though Thursday’s decision orders a new trial, it also notes that “the Crown is not intending to put a case in order.
“To the contrary, it appears that the Crown is not intending to ever proceed with a new trial,” the ruling reads.
When asked about the Crown’s plans for this case, a spokesperson for the Ministry of the Attorney General said they “could not provide further details” as the matter is before the court.
Speaking with reporters, Lockyer said it’s “fair to say” that the “likelihood of the Crown proceeding with a new trial is essentially non-existent.”
He said he anticipates the Crown will likely “dispose of the case in another way,” likely through a withdrawal.
“I would find it hard to believe they would try and proceed with a new trial, in light of what is now known,” Lockyer said.
