How Michael Bryant killed Darcy Allan Sheppard and how the justice system was manipulated to set him free

September 30, 2016



All of the tweets from this twitter essay are in this thread from the first tweet



September 27, 2016



When special prosecutor Richard Peck withdrew all charges against former Ontario Attorney General, Michael Bryant resulting from Bryant’s killing of Darcy Allan Sheppard, he failed to warn the court and the public about the credibility and bias of the prime video expert in the case.

Peck based his decision in large part due to the analysis of former Vancouver police officer Grant Fredericks whose work has been scathingly discredited as flawed, and biased in favour of law enforcement officials.

Grant Fredericks was a Vancouver police officer from 1988 until 2000. He is now an instructor at the FBI National Academy, an advisor to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and a principal instructor for the non-profit Law Enforcement and Emergency Services Video Association (LEVA).

Fredericks’ work has come under fire on both sides of the border as it has been repeatedly discredited. In the case of the death of Robert Dziekanski at the hands of the RCMP, Richard Peck acted as the special prosecutor. The Dziekanski case resulted in the dismissal of [Fredericks’] expert testimony and raised questions about “his cozy relationship with the Vancouver police.”

In a United States case involving the death of Otto Zehm, also at the hands of the police, the Justice Department argued that Fredericks offered his services to police and came to his conclusions before he finished analyzing the video of the incident.

The Center for Justice in Spokane, Washington reported:

“The gist of the Justice Department’s rebuttal is that Fredericks has a long record of bias in favor of embattled police officers and police departments, and that he regularly shapes his expert testimony accordingly.”

These shocking revelations raise credibility and bias issues surrounding the expert video evidence in the case against Michael Bryant. They create a perception of conflict of interest and special treatment for the former chief administrator of the justice system in the province.

Read the rest of this entry »


August 31, 2016

“Two-tier justice means that those who can afford a legal dream team can buy their way out of jail” – Michael Bryant




After police charged former Attorney General Michael Bryant with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death in relation to the death of cyclist Darcy Allan Sheppard, the Ministry of the Attorney General appointed BC criminal defence lawyer, Richard Peck as Special Prosecutor.


In September 20009, many news outlets reported based on a source familiar with the situation, that, In order to avoid a perception of a conflict of interest, Bryant’s successor, Attorney General Chris Bentley and his staff would “not be involved in Bryant’s case or take questions about it.”


“Instead, public servants in the ministry will deal with the file and report to deputy attorney general Murray Segal directly. Segal “moved very quickly to put the appropriate firewalls in place,” the source said.” (Metro September 3, 2009)


The problem with this move is that Murray Segal was also the deputy attorney general during Michael Bryant’s time as Attorney General, which meant that Bryant’s own deputy was handling his file. In fact even today, Bryant has a testimonial on Segal’s website:


Read the rest of this entry »

28 Forgotten Facts about Michael Bryant’s killing of Darcy Allan Sheppard

May 25, 2016

On this date six years ago Special Prosecutor and experienced defence attorney, Richard Peck withdrew charges against former Attorney General Michael Bryant in the death of Darcy Allan Sheppard. Bryant was charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death. Bryant’s actions were captured on surveillance video and witnessed by several people, and subject to forensic evidence.

Over the past six years most people have forgotten the events of that night and the evidence surrounding those events. Here are 28 Forgotten Facts about the case:



1 One month before he killed Darcy Allan Sheppard in a road rage attack, Michael Bryant told the Toronto Star’s Jennifer Wells  that “road rage is back in my life”


2 Michael Bryant admitted that the months leading up to the death of Darcy Allan Sheppard were a difficult time for him:“I was usually in the dog house that summer. Somehow I wasn’t engaged with the same human race of which my wife was a member. I was a distracted presence in my own marriage, my mind usually somewhere else. I was going through the pressure of a career change, a significant reorientation, maybe even something of a small mid-life crisis.” (28 Seconds, p. 6)


3 Even though it was their anniversary, Bryant admitted that the night of August 31, 2009 was filled with tension , noting that he and his wife argued. “We talked about our marriage – part debate, part monologue, part argument.” “Our marriage is in trouble. We know it. We’ve been in counseling since the spring. It’s our second counselor. A (anniversary) gift that strikes the wrong note could wreck the night…tension that’s become the new normal.”


4 Bryant was unhappy with the anniversary gift he got for his wife. In a last-ditch attempt to salvage the night Bryant raced to Bay and Bloor to buy his wife the anniversary present that she really wanted. He made excellent time until his path to redemption was stopped dead by a traffic jam for which Michael Bryant blamed Darcy Allan Sheppard.


5 In court Special Prosecutor Richard Peck characterized the Bryants’ “celebration” of their twelfth wedding anniversary as a special evening for the couple. He said “the mood was warm, it was nostalgic, it was reminiscing, like many couples do over their years together, and of course, what you always talk about, your children.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Ghomeshi v Bryant

April 24, 2016



After the trial and acquittal of Jian Ghomeshi much has been written and spoken regarding his lawyer Marie Henein and her work with another famous client, former Ontario Attorney General, Michael Bryant. In both cases the media attributed Henein’s success to her ability to find exculpatory evidence supporting her clients. The question that has not been addressed is why did Ghomeshi’s case go to trial but not Bryant’s?  Why did Henein reveal her entire defence to the Crown in Bryant’s case, in order to avoid a trial but not in Ghomeshi’s case?


The simple answer would be that Henein felt the evidence, against Jian Ghomeshi (including the exculpatory evidence she had uncovered) was stronger than the evidence against Michael Bryant. The Crown in Ghomeshi’s case went to trial because they believed they had a reasonable prospect of conviction. The Crown in Bryant’s case, represented by special prosecutor Richard Peck and his Ontario agent Mark Sandler determined that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.


Both defendants had the same lawyer, so let’s compare the strength of the evidence in each case.

Read the rest of this entry »

Witness against the prosecution—Part III

March 5, 2016

III   Reasonable doubt? Or unreasonable certainty? As usual for me, this post is long—extra-long in this case because I have included extensive notes with almost twice as many words as the main tex…

Source: Witness against the prosecution—Part III

Witness against the prosecution—Part II

February 10, 2016

28 Questions

II – Enlightened justice at the end of the tunnel? Or darkness?

In recalling the advice of Lord Mansfield (See Part I) Prof. Sen does not argue against giving reasons for official decisions; his book is an extended argument for full disclosure in the public interest and in the cause of justice.

He precedes his example from Lord Mansfield with this:

The avoidance of reasoned justification often comes not from indignant protesters but from placid guardians of order and justice. Reticence has appealed throughout history to those with a governing role, endowed with public authority, who are unsure of their grounds for action, or unwilling to scrutinize the basis of their policies.[Emphasis added.] 

And he follows it with this:

(Lord Mansfield’s pragmatic counsel) may be good advice for tactful governance, but it is surely no way of guaranteeing that the right things…

View original post 3,042 more words