Canadian True Crime - The Death of Darcy Allan Sheppard—Part 4

Episode Date: June 15, 2022

[ Part 4 of 6 ] The rest of Michael Bryant's version of events is provided to the court by the special independent prosecutor, as he explained his decision to withdraw the charges. At the time, the court heard that Bryant's version of events lined up with the evidence, but years later when documents containing details of a large amount of that evidence were publicly released, a different story emerges. Resources referenced:WATCH: Surveillance video released briefly by the mediaWATCH: Eyewitness statements and 911 call audioREAD:   Collision Reconstruction ReportREAD:   Transcript from May 25 2010 Court ProceedingFull list of resources and information sources and credits:See the page for this episode  at canadiantruecrime.caCredits:Research and production assistance: Haley GrayResearch, writing, sound design: Kristi LeeAudio editing: We Talk of DreamsTheme by We Talk of DreamsDisclaimer voiced by the host of True Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You can get anything you need with Uber Eats. Well, almost, almost anything. So no, you can't get snowballs on Uber Eats. But meatballs and mozzarella balls, yes, we can deliver that. Uber Eats. Get almost, almost anything. Order now. Product availability may vary by region. See app for details. We can wait for clean water solutions.

Or we can engineer access to clean water. We can acknowledge indigenous cultures. Or we can learn from indigenous voices. We can demand more from the earth. Or we can learn from Indigenous voices. We can demand more from the earth. Or we can demand more from ourselves. At York University, we work together to create positive change for a better tomorrow. Join us at yorku.ca slash write the future. Canadian True Crime is a completely independent production, funded mainly through advertising.

The podcast often has coarse language and disturbing content. It's not for everyone. This is part four of a multi-part series, and I have a bit of an announcement. Originally, it was supposed to be four parts, but as I've been releasing episodes, things have blown out quite a bit and the series will continue to about six parts. I did want to reassure you though that this doesn't signal a new direction for the podcast and it's not a departure from how we usually cover cases. This one is just a very special case that doesn't necessarily fit into the format of the show, but one that I'm very passionate about covering for obvious reasons. Where we left off, we had gone over the Collision Reconstruction Report,

a comprehensive document authored by two collision reconstruction experts and more than 50 other officers. When it came to Darcy's death, their finding was that both men shared responsibility. The concluding sentence of the report states, Mr Bryant's final actions in the third collision sequence led to the death of Mr Shepard. Mr Bryant's failure to stop the Saab when Mr Shepard deliberately hung on to the side of the Saab and driving his vehicle on the opposite side of the road in an attempt to dislodge Mr Shepard from his vehicle Mr Shepherd is also responsible for his actions that led up to the concluding incident.

All these incidents were unfortunate and avoidable. All these incidents were unfortunate and avoidable. At the court proceeding held seven months after Darcy's death, the special independent prosecutor Richard Peck requested on to giving Michael Bryant's side of the story, the defence's side, which wasn't a typical thing for a Crown prosecutor to do. The court then heard that Michael Bryant's side of the story starts at the main intersection before the block where the mid-block pedestrian crossing was. section before the block where the mid-block pedestrian crossing was. He claimed that there was a cyclist picking fights with people, throwing garbage, cycling figure eights from curb to curb, and generally impeding traffic, a part of DeStorey that has never been corroborated by any evidence or eyewitness accounts. The special independent prosecutor started with the rest of Michael Bryant's side of the story, the defense's position, painting him and his wife as being terrified in their

convertible as they were attacked by a guy on a bicycle acting loudly and aggressively. These assertions and the details given were not consistent with the findings of the Collision Reconstruction Report, but it would be several years before that report would be released publicly, so no one knew it at the time. The eyewitnesses overwhelmingly viewed Michael Bryant as the main covert aggressor in the incident that left Darcy Ellen Shepard dead. aggressor in the incident that left Darcy Alan Shepard dead. Darcy's conduct was perceived as passive-aggressive, a provocative comment and a smile from a vulnerable position as he straddled his bike at the lights in front of the Saab, facing forward the whole time. The reconstruction experts found there was no physical evidence or independent witness statements suggesting that Darcy physically attacked Michael Bryant. The last episode ended at the mid-block

pedestrian crossing, just after Darcy pulled in front of the Saab, a point at which Michael Bryant claimed the car stalled. He also claimed that Darcy took a swing at him as he cycled past, which was not consistent with the video review in the Collision Reconstruction Report, which determined that Darcy's hands were on the handlebars the whole time. Before we continue, just another reminder, while we're saying the court heard a lot, this wasn't a trial where evidence is presented to a judge or jury. It's just a court proceeding where the Crown explained its decision to withdraw Michael Bryant's charges. According to Michael Bryant, he just wanted to get away as this was happening. He said that he had already stalled the car and as he attempted to start it and get moving, it lurched forward, stalling again.

Now at this point, the court heard that there were two pieces of evidence about the car stalling. One was Michael Bryant's own version of events, a version that was given almost seven months after the incident, after he'd reviewed all the evidence. And his version of events had not been tested or subjected to cross-examination. The second piece of evidence the court heard about was that video expert's opinion that the engine stalling could be one explanation for the change in luminosity of the headlights, but that was only for the first time Bryant said that the car stalled. Now we know the collision reconstruction report mentioned nothing about the car stalling or anything related to that, but perhaps it's because they didn't actually know to check. The first time that Michael gave his version of the story was seven months after Darcy's death,

and by that point, the collision reconstruction report was done and dusted. There was nothing to indicate that the vehicle stalled twice at the time. And Michael Bryant didn't even mention it in his own 911 call. And a car that stalls is typically visible to bystanders because the engine either cuts out straight away and stops moving, and the car's taillights and headlights typically change accordingly, or if the engine doesn't cut out straight away, the car bounces and jerks forward and back one or more times, visibly. But none of the eyewitnesses mentioned anything about the car stalling either. car stalling either. After what the prosecutor described as the second motion forward when the car stalled a second time, the court heard that video evidence showed that the Saab came close to or in contact with the rear wheel of Darcy's bike. The prosecutor told the court, quote,

the video experts state that the video does not show contact at this point. The camera view is obscured to some extent by a bush situated on a ledge between the camera and what is being observed. The court then heard, There does not appear to have been any damage to the rear wheel rim of the bicycle examined by the police and the Crown. The way these sentences have been juxtaposed, it leaves the impression that the video showed no contact and there didn't appear to be any damage to the rear wheel of the bike,

ergo the car mustn't have hit it. But when read another way, the video experts were not saying there was no contact, they said that the video showed no contact because the bush was in the way. The Crown had hired their own independent video experts to review the footage, and we don't have their report, but we do have that collision reconstruction report that also included a review of the surveillance footage. Those experts determined that there was a camera that showed Darcy in front of the Saab and quote, the Saab moved forward from a stop striking the rear tyre of the bicycle at a low speed. The bicycle was knocked over and Mr. Shepherd remained standing in the video.

The court heard nothing of this though, nor did they hear anything of the statements given by Steve and Victoria. And he said, you want me to move now? You know, like kind of, he was tormenting him. And the car driver then bumped him a couple of times. You know, I actually shouted to them, stop it, because I could see that it was going to, you know, be a nightmare because he bumped him. And as he bumped him, the bike kind of fell between his legs. I didn't see,

I didn't know if the lights had changed, but certainly the car then moved forward very slowly onto his back wheel. And the guy and the cyclist fell off his bike. Just to clarify, the bike fell over and Darcy was jostled at this point, but he picked the bike up and righted himself. So even though there were several pieces of evidence confirming that the Saab did come in contact with the bike, including at least two eyewitness statements and of course the end result, the fact that the bike was knocked over,

the court did not hear about any of it. The special independent prosecutor continued with Michael Bryant's version of events. At this point, after the car had allegedly stalled a second time, Michael reported being in a state of panic. Quote, he was trying to get his car started and concentrating on that task. The Saab had a sensitive and tight clutch, as confirmed by the investigation. And then, quote, when the vehicle restarted, it accelerated into Mr. Sh has been worded implies the acceleration of the car was an accident that had nothing to do with the actions of the driver. The court heard that at the point of this third forward movement of the vehicle, quote, Mr Bryant states that he had been looking down while engaged in his efforts to restart the car. When he looked up, he saw Mr Shepherd on the hood of the car and immediately hit the brakes.

Experts determined that the car travelled a total distance of approximately 30 feet from the time the vehicle started its forward motion to the time the brakes were applied, and about 2.5 seconds elapsed. So this was being positioned as an accidental acceleration involving a tight or sensitive clutch. involving a tight or sensitive clutch. But accelerating accidentally is no easy feat when driving a manual or a stick shift because to make the car move forward smoothly, two different pedals have to coordinate, one foot easing off the clutch slowly as the other presses the gas. Once the sweet spot is found, the car can move forward smoothly, but if not, the engine either stalls and cuts out straight away, or the car does the dreaded bunny hop, jerking forward and back one or more times, visibly, causing you much embarrassment in the process. Now, Michael Bryant's version of the story was that he had already stalled the car twice, and now he's in a state of panic.

Yet he's somehow able to coordinate the clutch and the gas pedals to accelerate smoothly, keeping his foot on the gas for 2.5 seconds as the car accelerated 30 feet forward. That's two car lengths without any bouncing or jerking movements detected either on video or by eyewitnesses. And I want to be clear here, when it comes to the Saab accelerating into Darcy and his bike at such force that he was thrown over the hood and landed on the road, I'm not at all saying that Michael Bryant meant to do that. I have no doubt that he was in a state of panic at that point, as anyone involved in a similar road rage altercation would be. What I am saying is that whatever the car did that night is a direct result of his actions as the driver, because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

The court heard that during this part when the Saab accelerated, Darcy's bike was caught under the front bumper. Quote, when the vehicle stopped, Mr. Shepard fell off the hood and then stood up within about two seconds. He clearly was not seriously injured at that time. This statement has been carefully worded to minimize what happened to Darcy. There is definitive evidence that Darcy was injured in some way because there were numerous blood marks found on the bumper and grille of the car and and his cut-up hands left blood marks on the interior of the driver's side. But also, this statement about Darcy clearly not being seriously injured at the time was not attributed to any medical professional. It's just an opinion about the degree of possible injury

based on Darcy's apparent speed of recovery, and this opinion appears to contradict everything the medical science community reports about the effects of adrenaline after a crash or collision. Adrenaline is the hormone that floods our bodies to help us deal with stressful situations, and it can dull pain, heighten abilities, and mask serious injuries like internal bleeding, soft tissue injuries, and traumatic brain injuries. The effects of adrenaline are only temporary, enough to help us deal with the situation at hand. So the fact that Darcy got up after two seconds tells us nothing about whether he was seriously injured or not. tells us nothing about whether he was seriously injured or not, and the autopsy obviously couldn't discern between the possible injuries he sustained after the car accelerated into him and the fatal, unsurvivable injuries he would suffer just 30 seconds later. Additionally, even if Darcy was completely uninjured, this does not negate the fact that as he was straddling his bike facing Ford, he was hit from behind with force by a car. And again, the court heard nothing of Steve and Victoria's statements.

The cyclist picked up the bike and kind of had it between his legs again and got on and kind of was standing with it in between his legs. Then the car driver just kind of decided that he was going to drive off with the guy in front of him and that's when he tried to run him over he basically started to move the cyclist was in front of him he didn't care he just started driving and that's when i got my husband's blackberry and said phone 911 now and i was screaming at him get the number plate get the number and i thought maybe even if i screamed get the number plate that the man in the car would hear me say that you know because if I'm going to take his number plate he knows I'm watching what he's doing and he's going to be caught anyway so then he basically started to drive forward but not slowly with the

man on the bike in front of him and he was being moved along he got thrown over onto the bonnet and thrown onto the driver's side of the road. So he hit him full on at high speed. The cyclist obviously fell off the car and fell onto the driver's side of the car. The bike then was in the middle of the road. The guy got up and the car started to move away. And then there's this from Michael Bryant's memoir, 28 Seconds. Quote, During my frenzied attempts to start the car as it stalled and stalled, the Saab lurched three times. The first,

with the wheels aligned to the right, moved the car away from Shepard. With the second, there was still no contact with him or his bicycle. The third caused Shepard to land on the hood. But it was at a low speed, brief in duration, and because he was already so close to the car, left no discernible injury. End quote. You can get anything you need with Uber Eats. Well, almost, almost anything. So no, you can't get an ice rink on Uber Eats. But iced tea and ice cream? Yes, we can deliver that. Uber Eats, get almost, almost anything. Order now. Product availability may vary by region. See app for details. Hi, everyone. Today, we're talking passion projects that turn into careers, a topic that obviously resonates quite a bit with me. In collaboration with the Ontario Cannabis Store and ACAST Creative, I want to introduce you to

someone who took his passion for cannabis, turned it into a career and is now an industry trailblazer. This is Nico Soziak. He's the Chief Financial Officer of Canara Biotech, a prominent producer based in Montreal. Nico, I know that you've had a passion for cannabis for quite a few years, but you seem a lot younger than what I was expecting. I have to know how and when you got into the cannabis business. Yeah, absolutely. I look younger, but I'm aging by the day. But no, I'm 35 years old. I got into cannabis about five years ago. Started with Canara.

But you were a consumer before that. Yeah, I've been a consumer. I had friends in the legacy side of the business and watched what they did. I tried the different strains and genetics, watched how they grew. Really found a passion for cannabis and the products. But my professional career is an accountant. So while I had a passion for cannabis, I was also a straight A student. Wow. And then Canada decided to legalize cannabis. And that was when I was like, okay, this is kind of my calling. I have to

try to figure out how do I can get into the industry. And Canara had just became a public company. I joined them in April 2019 and built the finance department here at Canara and worked with the founder. And at one point I was given the keys to that. And now I'm here today. Wow, that's such a cool story. So how do you feel about being called a trailblazer in the legal market now? It's an honor. I've looked up to many

trailblazers in this industry today that come from the legacy side that went to legal. You know, I'm happy to be part of that. Actually, I wanted to ask you about the legacy market. How did you incorporate it into operations on the legal side? I don't pretend that the cannabis market just got created in 2017, right? For me, legacy means that everyone that's been working, all the businesses that have been in the industry pre-legalization. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel in terms of thinking I know what consumers want. There's been an industry that's been built for many, many, many years. So it's all the ideas and creations that were pre-legalization, figuring out how do we evolve that into the legal side with all the regulatory

frameworks. What would you say is the best part of working in the legal market? Knowing that your product is clean, knowing what you're consuming, we're ensuring quality, we're ensuring the price. I think we're ahead of other industries. Okay, so final question. What gets you excited to go to work every day? This is my dream. This is my passion. I get excited. Work doesn't feel like work for me.

When you're creating things that you dream about, I give the idea to the team. The team is able to execute different innovations. That's what really gets me excited. Thanks for listening to this Trailblazers story brought to you by the Ontario Cannabis Store and ACAST Creative. If you like the trail Nico Soziak is blazing, you will love what's happening in legal cannabis. Visit ocs.ca slash trailblazers to learn more. The prosecutor continued, telling his backpack, which struck either the hood or windshield and bounced onto Bloor Street, landing near the north curb.

Mr Shepherd then leapt onto the vehicle as the vehicle began to move away. The collision reconstruction report includes more details from the eyewitness who we know to be Victoria. She stated that she picked up Darcy's bike and the knapsack, or tried to. Quote, Someone helped me with the knapsack as the back wheel was not working on the bicycle. Now we get to what the special independent prosecutor told the court about what the eyewitnesses had reported seeing in their statements at this point. I need to reiterate again that while both legal teams had access to all the witness statements, as well as the other documents and reports like the Collision Reconstruction Report, it would be a few more years before they would be released publicly. So in 2010, when this hearing was taking place, there was no trial, no evidence presented, no testifying under oath, no cross-examination and no testing of fact. The court again heard that several of the eyewitnesses described Darcy as acting very aggressively and angrily throughout.

But again, we could only find one reference to this, that witness in the collision reconstruction report who said that after the car hit Darcy, the quote, cyclist approached car aggressively. Darcy the quote cyclist approached car aggressively. It should be noted that this is the only witness who says anything that attributes covert aggression to Darcy and once again the court heard nothing of what Steve and Victoria said they saw. The court heard that when Darcy Allen Shepard leapt onto the car, both Michael Bryant and his wife described him as trying to get into the vehicle. And then, quote, The prosecutor then referenced their own independent forensic exam. Quote, Mr Shepherd as being in the car from the waist up. But in the collision reconstruction report,

there is no reference to any eyewitness saying they saw Darcy in the vehicle from the waist up. No one said they saw him in the vehicle at all. In fact, one witness stated, the cyclist would not have had time to climb into the car. And there is nothing in the report that mentions Darcy's jeans or any impressions found on a rubberised area on the driver's door. Whatever is included in the Crown's independent forensic investigation is firewalled and cannot be released under freedom of information. Now, as you'll remember, in one of the earlier court hearings, the Crown explained the reason for the delay. It was going to be re-interviewing witnesses and conducting further forensic testing. This might be one explanation for the very clear inconsistencies between the pages and pages of eyewitness statements summarized in the Collision Reconstruction Report and what the special

prosecutor chose to present in court that day. But as it turned out, the Crown did not actually re-interview any of the witnesses. Perhaps this disparity could be explained by the fact that the Collision Reconstruction Report only included summarized accounts of 19 eyewitness statements deemed to be relevant, not the full statements of all 25. And perhaps those full statements included many contradictory details that the reconstruction experts chose both to ignore from their analysis and exclude in the report's summarized accounts, but the prosecutor made no mention of this. The court heard that this same witness who mentioned seeing Darcy in the car from the waist up also said that Darcy appeared to be putting his hands in the car. Another described

it as Darcy striking his hands onto the hood of the car and latching onto the vehicle as it started to move away, leaving traces of blood inside the car where his hands gripped. The prosecutor said, quote, the accounts of the eyewitness report that Darcy physically attacked Michael Bryant. What we did find was what you've already heard. Michael Bryant. What we did find was what you've already heard, the conclusion from the collision reconstruction report, which wasn't public at the time. Quote, there was no physical evidence or independent witness statements suggesting Mr. Shepard affected the steering of the Saab or anything to suggest he physically attacked Mr Bryant. So where were Steve and Victoria's statements in all of this?

Curiously, there doesn't appear to be any reference to them or anything they said in any part of this presentation. Nothing in the 68-page transcript which was released later, or the 11-page brief or executive summary that was distributed to the media that day. And remember, there was no way for anyone to know this, since the eyewitness statements weren't public knowledge. So looking back in hindsight, it appears that the evidence the court heard about at this proceeding

had been carefully chosen to portray a certain narrative. And certainly this is something we know to expect from the team defending the accused, Michael Bryant's defence team led by Marie Hennon. But this wasn't defence counsel. Michael Bryant's defence team, led by Marie Hennon. But this wasn't defence counsel. This was coming from the Crown, or more importantly, the Special Independent Prosecutor assigned to avoid a conflict of interest,

a prosecutor that is obliged to consider all of the evidence in totality. When it comes to the duties and responsibilities of Crown counsel, the government website for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada states special responsibilities are placed on Crown counsel that results in certain ethical objections. It states the role of Crown counsel is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant And quote, but it must also be done fairly. The role of the prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing. His function is a matter of public duty. The website goes on to state that the Crown prosecutors must not express personal opinions on the evidence. They must not refer to any unproven facts,

even if they're material and could have been admitted as evidence, and Crown prosecutors must obtain objectivity, quote, being aware of the dangers of tunnel vision and ensuring they review the evidence in an objective, rigorous and thorough manner. Now, obviously, this wasn't a trial. There was no jury. It was a court proceeding where the Crown explained its decision to withdraw Michael Bryant's charges. And this wasn't any Crown counsel. This was a special independent prosecutor. While there doesn't appear to be any manual or mandate for special prosecutors in Ontario, British Columbia has one that states, Special Prosecutors in Ontario, British Columbia has one that states, Special Prosecutors must adhere to the policies of the BC Prosecution Service.

Perhaps an explanation can be found in the phrase, The Crown must lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime. Again, it wasn't a trial, but if we take that statement to its logical conclusion, in deciding to withdraw the charges, the Crown did not consider Stephen Victoria's statements to be relevant and credible evidence, even though they were given just hours after the incident. Yet the untested personal accounts of Michael Bryant and his wife, provided six months later under less than transparent conditions, were considered relevant and credible. And so too were these other eyewitness statements, statements that we can't find any record of and actually appear to contradict the 19 accounts we do have.

So if these eyewitness statements were deemed relevant and credible when making the decision about whether to withdraw charges, why then were statements like Steve and Victoria's not? So now we are up to the part where the court has been told that Darcy tried to physically attack Michael Bryant before latching onto the car. At this point, Richard Peck, the special independent prosecutor, gave an account of Michael Bryant's state of mind, saying that he intended to get away from Darcy throughout the event and was in a state of fear and panic. His wife described never having been so scared in her life. The prosecutor continued with Michael Bryant's version of events, with another interesting choice of words that minimizes his involvement. with another interesting choice of words that minimizes his involvement.

Quote, End quote. Rather than being driven by Michael Bryant, the Saab appears to be a completely separate entity, perhaps resembling Christine, the possessed car from the Stephen King novel of the same name. So now we're up to the part where the Saab, driven by Michael Bryant, has veered over onto the wrong side of the road, with Darcy latched onto the driver's side. The court heard that this was observed by a number of witnesses and while they were, quote, honest people, their accounts are different because eyewitnesses see different things. The prosecutor then went on to give some examples, quote, Mr Bryant said he was trying to keep control, was struggling. The vehicle was not swerving all over the place. According to the special prosecutor, a number of eyewitnesses had also

reported that the car went up on the curb. Quote, one witness said the car was rubbing against the south curb. Another said the car mounted the sidewalk and drove half on the sidewalk and half on the road. Yet another witness described the vehicle as going onto the sidewalk and another said that the vehicle was driving over the curb. The prosecutor said that these eyewitness accounts quote, vary considerably and there is little video evidence of this part of the incident. But quote, a forensic examination of the vehicle and the car, from the point at which Darcy latched on. The video expert cited by the prosecutor determined that the average speed of the vehicle during this drive was somewhere in the range of 34 kilometers per hour, yet the eyewitnesses estimated it to be 60 to 100 kilometers per hour. So the court had just heard that there

was significant disparity in what the eyewitnesses said they saw when it came to how Michael Bryant was driving the car, and they estimated it to be going much faster than what the independent expert apparently determined was the vehicle's average speed. recall from the last episode, we explained that the collision reconstruction experts didn't have the data points to be able to calculate average speeds, and even if they did, there are many variables that make it a difficult determination, like the fact that the car wasn't going the same speed the whole time. The prosecutor also told the court that it appears the vehicle may never have left first gear during the drive. Quote, Mr Bryant said he never took his hands off the wheel, struggling to maintain control, and his wife believed that they were in first gear throughout this portion of the drive, which would cause an audible revving of the engine, which may explain a witness's misperception of speed.

From a lot of what had been presented so far, a layperson might start to think that these eyewitnesses just can't get their stories straight, or they're mistaken, ergo they shouldn't be relied upon. And again, at the time this decision was being presented, there was no way to know either way. The prosecutor had stated that the vehicle was not swerving all over the place, but we can't find a single example of a person saying they didn't see the car swerving, let alone three. And while the prosecutor said there were three witnesses who did see the car swerving, we actually found four. In fact, the accounts were significant enough that the reconstruction experts themselves summarized them as part of the report's conclusion.

Quote, the Saab movements were described as deliberate swerving movements, which moved the vehicle closer to the fire hydrant trees and posts on the south side of Bloor Street West. So if we were able to find four eyewitnesses who said they did see the car swerving, compared to one who apparently did not, why did the prosecutor state that the vehicle was not swerving? And when it came to the six eyewitnesses who reportedly saw the Saab drive up on the curb or the sidewalk, we could only find two who said anything like this. Again, because the court heard earlier that all of these six statements go against the forensic finding that the Saab did not rub up against or mount the curb at any time, it might be easy to jump to a conclusion that because the witnesses all said they saw a thing that was determined not to have happened, they must be all wrong and should be taken with a grain of salt.

But here's what wasn't mentioned in the court proceeding. There were actually nine eyewitnesses who said the exact opposite. Nine eyewitness accounts that were consistent with the forensic finding that the car didn't go up on the curb. These nine people reported that the car went close to the curb or sidewalk or comments consistent with that. So again, if there were nine eyewitnesses who gave statements that were consistent with the forensic evidence, why was a decision made to only include mention of the apparently six witnesses who were mistaken, only two of which we could actually find? Earlier, the court had heard that two witnesses observed the brake lights come on during the course of this drive.

The prosecutor told the court that Michael Bryant acknowledged braking in the hope that Darcy Allen Shepard would let go of the car. But as you'll remember, the eyewitnesses saw it differently. One said Darcy was holding on for dear life. He couldn't have let go at that speed. Another said the car was going very fast and there would have been serious damage if Darcy let go. And three more described Michael Bryant's driving not as an attempt to get Darcy to let go, but as an attempt to dislodge him or shake him off. This is also how the reconstruction experts described it in the report's conclusion. And when it comes to those two eyewitnesses who reportedly

said they saw the brake lights come on, the only witness that mentioned anything about brake lights in the collision reconstruction report said, quote, did not see brake lights when it took off. According to the special prosecutor, Michael Bryant was trying to drive as straight as he could, but it was a struggle to keep the wheel straight. Quote, Mr. Shepard's face was very close to his, and he believes that at one point he was struck in the forehead by Mr. Shepard. When he was booked into the police station, he indeed did advise them that he had been struck in the forehead. Now, this is a good example of a point in which Michael Bryant's version of events is presented as fact, without the proper testing of the evidence. There is no evidence to suggest

that he was struck in the forehead and the fact that he mentioned this at the police station after his arrest doesn't validate it as fact. The court heard that the total distance from the point where Darcy jumped onto the car to the point where his torso slammed into the fire hydrant, which caused him to just fall off, was approximately 100 meters, and the entire incident took less than 30 seconds. And during this part of the sequence, where the car accelerated forward 100 meters on the wrong side of the road, with Darcy hanging off the side, Michael Bryant claimed he struggled to maintain control of his car. So who was in control during this time? Someone was in control of the brake, accelerator and

clutch pedals, as well as the steering wheel. The road wasn't wet or icy, and the pavement was completely dry that summer night. And you'll remember the collision reconstruction report included details about at least three witnesses who were asked whether they thought the car was out of control, and none of them did. One even added that in their opinion, no one could say it was an accident, and another witness who wasn't at a vantage point to see Darcy clinging to the car, stated that the car was in full control as it went into the curb, quote, just enough to squeeze the guy off. We'll see you next time. We deliver those. Moose? No. But moose head? Yes. Because that's alcohol, and we deliver that too. Along with your favorite restaurant food, groceries, and other everyday essentials. Order Uber Eats now. For alcohol, you must be legal drinking age.

Please enjoy responsibly. Product availability varies by region. See app for details. So after Darcy was dislodged from the car after hitting the mailbox and fire hydrant, the court heard that Michael Bryant reported feeling in control again and proceeded from the wrong side of the road back to the correct lane of travel. He then travelled the short distance around the corner to the Park Hyatt Hotel, a place he frequented often during that summer, thinking it would be a sanctuary. The prosecutor told the court that Michael Bryant's intention was to call 911,

and the reason it took three minutes for him to make that call was because he couldn't find his BlackBerry cell phone. He looked for it in the driver's footwell, but he couldn't find it there, so he used his wife's cell phone to call 911. It should be noted that his wife had her phone with her there throughout this incident, and there is no evidence that she attempted to call 911 or anyone for help. Here's where we get to what Michael Bryant said in his 911 call. The prosecutor told the court that during the call Bryant identified himself, said he was at the Park Hyatt Hotel and he'd been attacked by a man on a bicycle on Bloor Street who had been hanging out of his car. The prosecutor then quoted a part of that 911 call where Michael Bryant described what he perceived the cyclist had been doing before they

got to the intersection. You heard the first part of this in the last episode. Michael said Darcy was quote, literally picking fights with people on the corner of Yonge and Bloor and putting up obstacles in the way and trying to stop cars from going. We all avoided him, drove past him and then he came back. I'm in a convertible, so he came back and he started, I mean, I thought he took a swing at me, but whatever, he missed. And then he pulled in front of me and stopped. I slammed on the brakes and I tried to get away, and then the next thing I knew, he's like trying to climb into my car, and I think he grabbed something from the car and pulled it Michael Bryant described the cyclist as being pretty violent. When the operator asked Michael where the cyclist was now, he said,

somewhere on Bloor, I suppose, and added that he just wanted to pull into a place where the operator then offered, where you felt a little safer? To which Mr Bryant replied, yeah. He then waited for the police to arrive. This is all the court heard about this 911 call. And again, I wanted to note that we don't have a transcript or audio, because Michael Bryant never gave permission for it to be released, which is of course his right. The Collision Reconstruction Report includes a bulleted summary of the things Michael Bryant said during the phone call, and one of those bullet points states that he told the 911 operator that he believed the cyclist grabbed his BlackBerry specifically. But after the police had seized the Saab and searched it, they found that BlackBerry in the passenger footwell.

Put another way, when Michael Bryant wasn't immediately able to find his BlackBerry, he quickly jumped to the assumption that the cyclist must have stolen it, an assumption based on zero evidence, which he then communicated to the 911 operator. Now at this point, while we're discussing what was included in the 911 call, it's important to note what appears to be missing from it. As you'll remember from the last episode, the prosecutor said this about Michael Bryant's account of the first time the Saab stalled. That's when Darcy first cut in front of it as the lights changed to green. Quote, Mr. Shepard slowed his speed and came very close to the driver's side door and Mr. Bryant ducked to his right at the same time hitting his brakes and turning his wheels to the right. The vehicle, Mr. Bryant says, then stalled. Now, this is what he said in his 911 call made three minutes after he arrived at the Park Hyatt Hotel. Quote,

Then he pulled in front of me and I stopped. I slammed on the brakes and I tried to get away and then he, the next thing I know, he's like literally trying to climb into my car. There is no mention of the car stalling at this point. As you'll recall, Michael Bryant's account included the car stalling a second time. The special prosecutor minimised the fallout from this, but we know that this is the first incident in the collision where the car bumped into the bike and jostled Darcy. You'll also remember that when Michael Bryant restarted

the car after it had stalled a second time, the car was described as quote, accelerating into Mr. Shepard causing him to land on the hood of the vehicle. There was no mention of accidental acceleration in the 911 call, nor was there any mention about a cyclist landing on the hood of the car. In fact, what's even more striking about this 911 call is that Michael Bryant mentions nothing about the Saab he was driving hitting a person or his bike, either the first time when Darcy was jostled and had to right himself, or the second time, that accidental acceleration, when the force of the impact sent Darcy onto the hood and onto the road,

landing right next to the driver's side. Not one mention, yet it was Darcy who was described as being pretty violent. Also included in the special prosecutor's presentation was mention of the doorman at the Park Hyatt, who recognised Michael Bryant because he frequented the establishment. The doorman stated that at some point during their interactions, Michael Bryant stated that he had been assaulted, and either then or at some point during their interactions, Michael Bryant stated that he had been assaulted and either then or at some later time also stated that he had roughed the guy up

or I roughed him up good and further, he's in pretty bad shape over there pointing towards Bloor Street. The special prosecutor added, quote, Mr Bryant's recollection of the words he used to describe what had happened differs, Now, the doorman's statement has never been released, so it's not publicly known what he said or how it differed from Michael Bryant's account. But the court also heard that the doorman reported that Michael Bryant was speaking in the context of defending himself, and that he and his wife appeared shaken. So that was Michael Bryant's account of what happened that night. And now, the special

independent prosecutor was going to explain how the Crown arrived at the decision to withdraw charges. The court heard that Michael Bryant's account of the evening, and that of his wife, has been evaluated in the context of other evidence available to the Crown, which apparently included the surveillance video, the account of, quote, pedestrians, nearby workers, other motorists and one individual from his fifth floor residence, as well as multiple forensic reports and advice from experts, the various 911 calls to police, and finally, the prior history of Darcy Alan Shepard. When mentioning the prior history, it includes Darcy's background and his criminal rap sheet, but it also includes something else altogether,

a tangent that formed an integral part of the legal argument for withdrawing charges. for withdrawing charges. Earlier in the court proceeding, the prosecutor had stated that in cases like this, where the accused claimed their actions were justified because of the other person's perceived level of aggression, the law recognizes that any prior aggressive conduct from that other person is relevant as well. In layman's terms, Michael Bryant was claiming he was justified in his actions, and the special prosecutor had stated that evidence existed that proved Darcy had attacked Michael Bryant, and his actions amounted to a reaction to that attack. But on top of this, the court heard about other examples that showed prior aggressive conduct. Examples where Darcy was apparently aggressive towards other motorists

as well, not just Michael Bryant. Incidents that the court heard were relevant, quote, to show the probability that Darcy Ellen Shepard was the aggressor. to show the probability that Darcy Ellen Shepard was the aggressor. A well-known Ontario Court of Appeal decision, R. V. Scopoliti, was cited, which was a case where a man charged with murder claimed self-defence. The Court of Appeal determined that the prior conduct of the person who was murdered may be admissible to demonstrate the likelihood that they were the aggressor in the matter before court. The special independent prosecutor then outlined six altercations that Darcy allegedly had with other motorists prior to his death, altercations that the court heard only became known to the Crown because of the immense

amount of publicity about the case. When Darcy's picture was reported in the media, several people reportedly recognised him from prior dealings and they came out of the woodwork. Incident number one involved a 76-year-old female motorist who said she was confronted by a cyclist who swore and yelled at her for cutting him off. She said he followed her, advanced towards her, and told her to get out of the car. She said she felt compelled to gun it out of there and described the person who attacked her as, like a madman. When she saw the picture of Darcy in the media, she said she knew it was the same man. As for when the incident occurred, the prosecutor told the court that she said it happened several years prior.

Now, at the time, Darcy's loved ones listened in surprise as this was read out. Alan Shepard would describe his reaction as surprised, shocked, embarrassed and guilty, for Darcy and for himself as Darcy's parent. What was being described by the special independent prosecutor wasn't out of the realm of possibility when it came to Darcy's behavior, but there were a few things that seemed odd. How was this elderly witness deemed to be independent and credible when she couldn't even remember the date, in fact she couldn't even remember the year that it happened, only that it was several years prior? the year that it happened, only that it was several years prior. Yet she was able to definitively recognize Darcy from a photo she saw published in the media several years later. Secondly, Darcy was always changing his look. In one photo, he had long dark brown hair and neatly cropped facial hair. In another, he had a bike helmet on. You can't see

any hair. He's cleanly shaven and he's showing a smile and a wave. Another photo shows him with spiky bleached hair with neatly cropped facial hair. Yet another, the main photo distributed by the media, shows him clean shaven, his hair dark and spiky with frosted tips. Since several years had passed between her interaction with the cyclist and the photo of Darcy published in the media, it's likely that Darcy looked quite a bit different. Given this and the fact that she had no idea when she saw him, how was this determined to be a positive identification? On to incident number two. The prosecutor said that a male in his 30s reported that about two to three months before Darcy's death, he was standing with two work colleagues when a man

who looked like Darcy passed too closely by him on his bike. When the man said, take it easy, the cyclist yelled an expletive and the man yelled one right back. Then the cyclist came back towards the man, angry, and they had a verbal argument. During this argument, the cyclist took out a bicycle lock and challenged the man to fight him. The man said that at this point, his boss came and told them to walk away. The prosecutor said, quote, The situation was diffused, probably due to the presence of others. The implication is that if other people hadn't been there to witness the attack, the cyclist would have physically attacked the man. Again, this person saw a photo of Darcy in the media and recognised him.

And this wasn't the first time the prosecutor alleged that Darcy had used a bicycle lock as a weapon. As you'll remember, earlier he said that after Darcy left Misty's apartment, a resident of the building apparently called 911 to report that Darcy had been observed, quote, allegedly assaulting a homeless man, possibly with a bicycle lock. The prosecutor claimed they had police printouts as evidence that the 911 call was made, but those were never released as part of the Freedom of Information request. It doesn't mean that this alleged assault didn't happen, but what we do know is that no one, including the responding officers or any of the other residents on the scene, heard or reported anything about an assault on a homeless man, let alone with a bicycle lock. But now that the court was hearing that there was a second bicycle lock story, a repeated detail, it had the effect of lending credibility to both stories,

even though it amounted to very vague allegations that weren't proven in court. vague allegations that weren't proven in court. So those were the first two incidents included in what we're referring to as the Scopa Leidy evidence, a total of six separate incidents that reportedly showed Darcy had a prior history of aggression toward other motorists. Incident number three occurred about a month before Darcy's death. A 23-year-old woman observed a cyclist swerving in and out of downtown traffic in an aggressive way, saying that she had cut him off. She said he came at her completely enraged, calling her a whore and a stupid bitch, spitting on her vehicle before trying to pursue her as she drove off. When she saw the photo of Darcy in the paper, she said she burst into tears because she knew it was the same person and contacted the police. Incident number four happened a little

over two weeks before Darcy's death. A motorist in a BMW had veered slightly into the oncoming lane to avoid parked delivery vehicles and suddenly noticed a man was screaming and yelling at him saying, just because you drive a fancy car you think you can drive down the wrong side of the road. The driver reported that the individual reached into the car, tried to grab the keys, tried to smack the driver and grab his earpiece. The driver pushed the man out of the car and the man said he'd beat the driver's head in before spitting on the car, banging his fists on it and then jumping onto the car, holding onto the window.

and then jumping onto the car, holding onto the window. Now, what is different about this incident is that there is photographic evidence. An onlooker took four photos and they were presented in court, showing a, quote, shirtless and angry-looking Darcy hanging onto the car with his hands inside the driver's window and his feet on the car's running board. Darcy's loved ones had no idea about this incident, but the photographs definitely appeared to be Darcy. It showed him with the hairstyle he was sporting at the time of his death, an unstyled dark brown mohawk shaved at the sides. And the next day, after the court proceeding, everyone would see the photos because they would be published on the front page of the National Post.

No such photos were provided for the other incidents, but because this photo was a clear identification of Darcy, his loved ones believed by inference that the other reports must be true as well. Incident number five happened in the days before Darcy's death. A driver said he sounded his horn at a cyclist in the center of the passing lane, but the cyclist ignored him. The driver found a way around the cyclist, but further up the road at the intersection, the cyclist ignored him. The driver found a way around the cyclist but further up the road at the intersection, the cyclist came back and slapped the driver's side window of the car, making angry comments and spitting and salivating. After the motorist called 911, the cyclist threw something at the car which damaged its left side view mirror. Later on, the driver met with police officers

and had his car repaired at a body shop. The Crown said they had witnessed the repair documents. It's not known when this driver identified the cyclist as being Darcy Ellen Shepard, but, quote, he is positive that Mr Shepard was the cyclist he had encountered. is positive that Mr Shepherd was the cyclist he had encountered. Incident number six, the final incident that was being presented by the special prosecutor as evidence that Darcy had a prior history of attacking motorists, happened only a few hours before Darcy died.

At about 6.20pm that night, a motorist observed a cyclist weaving in and out of traffic and doing figure eights so erratically she had to slam on her brakes to keep from hitting him. The cyclist then changed directions and put his hand through the open driver's side window of another driver's car, appearing to reach for the steering wheel or scare the driver. He then banged on the windshields of other cars. The following day, this motorist saw two pictures of Darcy in the media, and based on one of the pictures, she identified the cyclist she saw as Darcy, but she said she was not absolutely certain. Now, this incident happened only a few hours before Darcy's death, with a cyclist who had apparently been aggressive towards other motorists. Yet, despite Darcy's picture being widely published after that, no other motorists from that incident came forward to validate the account.

And just like with the bicycle lock, there's some familiar details in this story. started at the intersection before the mid-block pedestrian crossing, where he reported encountering an angry cyclist who he said was Darcy, impeding traffic by doing figure eights, throwing debris, picking fights with motorists and putting up obstacles to impede traffic. And in the next sequence at the pedestrian crossing, Michael reported that Darcy took a swing at him as he cycled past. He tried to climb into the car, was in the car from the waist up, and tried to grab something from the car. All details given by Michael Bryant that were consistent with this sixth incident that formed the Scopoliti evidence. Again, it should be noted that Michael Bryant had remained silent until seven months after Darcy's death. It was only after he had received

the full disclosure of evidence from the Crown and all the details of the six incidents that make up this Scopoliti evidence that he gave his version of the story. And as you'll recall, he was quoted as saying, we all avoided him, drove past him, implying that there were other motorists who witnessed this angry cyclist. But despite it being on that same busy stretch of Bloor Street, just minutes before the high-profile incident that cost Darcy his life, no one else ever came forward to report any strange incidents involving an angry cyclist on the same stretch of road. The prosecutor told the court that the significant fact about all these six events is that all but one of them took place in 2009, the year Darcy died, with four of them happening the month of his death. The court heard that this demonstrated a, quote, escalating cycle of aggressiveness towards motorists in the days leading to the

fatal interaction with Mr Bryant. The prosecutor said, features of these accounts given by these witnesses, who are independent, credible witnesses, as I say, subject to careful interviews, would resonate with the accounts given by Mr Bryant and his wife and are consistent with the body of reliable objective evidence pertaining to the critical events. And according to the prosecutor, though six reports weren't the only ones, they had reportedly received even more reports of people encountering an angry cyclist believed to be Darcy. of people encountering an angry cyclist believed to be Darcy. The special prosecutor added that although these other accounts are similar to the ones presented, the Crown wasn't satisfied that the identification of Darcy as the perpetrator was reliable and credible, so decided to exclude them. So by this logic, the six accounts presented at that court hearing were presumably chosen

because they were considered to be reliable and credible, even though only one was a positive identification of Darcy. In fact, one person couldn't even remember the year her incident happened, and another wasn't even sure the cyclist she saw was Darcy. These were the best of the bunch. And same thing when it comes to the untested accounts of Michael Bryant and his wife, provided seven months later under less than transparent conditions. Those were considered relevant and credible too, as were the various eyewitnesses referenced that we can't find any record of. This doesn't mean that anyone lied or that the evidence doesn't exist, but none of them were sworn in, none of them testified under oath, they weren't cross-examined, so logically, none of them can be accepted as the unchallengeable truth. So if all this evidence was determined to be relevant and credible when the special prosecutor was deciding whether to withdraw charges,

why was all the contradictory evidence like the Collision Reconstruction Report and eyewitness statements like Stephen Victoria's not. That's where we'll leave it for this episode, but we'll be back in a week with the last part of this court proceeding, including what Michael Bryant's lawyer Marie Hennon had to say that day, and then will follow the aftermath as things continue to snowball and Darcy's loved ones and supporters press harder for the truth. If you wanted to take a look at the source materials, including the Collision Reconstruction Report, the transcript of this court proceeding, the video statements from several eyewitnesses, the surveillance videos, the blogs that have been set up, all the media articles and resources used and

more, see the show notes or visit the page for this episode at canadiantruecrime.ca. A big thanks to Amazon Music Canada for featuring this series on their Canadian homepage this week. And as always, thank you so much for your kind ratings, reviews, messages, and support. I really appreciate them. Thanks also to Hayley Gray for research assistance and to We Talk of Dreams for audio production, the host of True Voice the Disclaimer, and of course, We Talk of Dreams composed the theme song. I'll be back soon with part five. See you then. Thanks for watching!