Introduction

Factual Background

In December 1981, Barbara Stoppel was working as a waitress at the Ideal Donut Shop. On the 23rd of December, she began her shift at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Vlademir Ududec, the proprietor of the store, came in, paid Barbara her wages, removed money from the till and left $33.00 in it. A regular customer was there when Mr. Ududec arrived. He testified that he left the store at about 8:10 p.m. or a little later. There were no other customers in the store when he left. It is known that Barbara Stoppel then spoke on the phone to a friend of hers for a few minutes. Apart from the murderer, the friend was the last person to speak to Barbara Stoppel. At about 8:45 p.m. on the 23rd of December, several witnesses found her in the women's washroom of the donut shop. She had been strangled and was close to death. Witnesses had earlier observed a male in the donut shop.

Mrs. Janower worked at the Boots Drugstore. It was in the same shopping plaza and close to the Ideal Donut Shop. At about 8:20 p.m., she went to the donut shop for coffee. When she arrived, she saw a man standing inside, at the front door of the shop. He locked the door to the donut shop. He then turned and headed towards the washroom on the left hand side of the shop. Mrs. Janower returned to the drugstore and told another employee, Ms Nash, about the suspicious activities that she had just observed. They attempted to call the owner of the donut shop but were unsuccessful.

At about 8:30 p.m., Mr. Norman Janower arrived at the drugstore to pick up his wife. She told him of the suspicious activities that she had seen at the donut shop. Mr. Janower looked toward the donut shop and saw a man turn the "open/close" sign over and come out the front door. Mr. Janower walked towards the donut shop. As he approached the shop, Mr. Janower met Mr. Doerksen who was also coming to the door outside the donut shop. Mr. Doerksen asked the man coming out of the donut shop what was happening and was told that the store was closed. Mr. Janower walked into the donut shop and called out. When he received no response, he went to the rear of the shop, opened the door of the women's washroom and found Barbara Stoppel collapsed on the floor. He shouted to his wife to call the police and an ambulance.

Mr. John Doerksen was selling Christmas trees close by the donut shop. He went to the Ideal Donut Shop at about 8:35 p.m. to have coffee. When he arrived, he found the front door locked and could see no one inside. He waited for about five minutes and was joined by Mr. Janower. They both saw a man come out of the ladies' washroom and close the door. After picking up a box, the man went to the front door, flipped the sign to "closed" unlocked the door and came out. The man made some comment to Mr. Janower and Mr. Doerksen that the store was closed. When Mr. Janower discovered Barbara, he called to Mr. Doerksen to follow the man who was now running towards the Norwood Bridge.

Mr. Doerksen picked up a baseball bat at the Domo gas station and followed the man. He caught up to him a quarter of the way across the bridge and an altercation of some kind took place. When the man drew a knife, Mr. Doerksen backed away. Mr. Doerksen saw the man throw something over the bridge. When he returned to the donut shop, he saw the police at the scene and decided to go home. At home, he drank about five bottles of beer and decided to call the hospital and inquire about Barbara Stoppel. This was the first time that he spoke to the police. Shortly after that call, the police picked him up and took a statement from him.

Mr. Paul McDougald arrived at the shopping centre at about 8:25 p.m. He parked his truck in a way which permitted him to watch the activities within the donut shop. His wife went to the Boots Drugstore while he remained in his truck. Mr. McDougald watched a man in the donut shop talking with the waitress. The two people in the donut shop talked for a few minutes, then walked to the back of the store with the man leading, followed by the waitress. At the rear of the store, they continued talking for a time and then the man returned to the front of the store and locked the door. He then went back to the rear of the store and both entered the ladies' washroom.

At this point, Mr. McDougald went into the drugstore and spoke to Mrs. Janower. He then returned to his truck and continued to watch the donut shop but did not see anything further. He then went into G & T Television, told the manager of the suspicious actions that he had observed and they both continued to watch the donut shop. A short time later, they observed a man come out of the washroom. Upon reaching the front door, the man turned the "open/close" sign, unlocked the door and left in a hurry. He was carrying a brown cardboard box and walked towards the McDonald's store.

Mr. Marcel Gloux was driving over the Norwood Bridge that evening. He saw a male person standing on the side of the bridge throwing items down to the river below. He also saw a man wearing what he believed was snowmobile outfit, who was armed with a baseball bat and running towards the man on the bridge. This would have been about 8:45 p.m.

The police searched the riverbank under the bridge and found five individual pieces of green and yellow braided nylon rope identical to that used in the killing. They also found a small cardboard box. These items were immediately below the place where Mr. Doerksen had confronted the suspect. The police found footprints proceeding from the north end of the bridge going in an easterly direction up an embankment on to the railway tracks. These footprints indicated that the man was travelling in an easterly direction. However, they could not follow the tracks further because of drifting snow and the overlay of more recent footprints, probably made by railroad employees.

Also recovered from the ice surface under the bridge were two pairs of gloves. One pair was a tan colour leather and the other set was black/white woven gloves. On the black/white gloves, there was green and yellow twine that was identical to that used in the killing.

The police received the telephone call for assistance from Ms Nash at 8:46 p.m. The police arrived shortly after the call and took possession of the scene. The women's washroom showed evidence of a struggle. There were a number of small bloodstains on the floor, south wall and sink. The wastebasket had been overturned and its contents spread across the floor.

Mr. Vlademir Ududec, the owner of the donut shop, arrived on the scene and, on checking the cash register, determined that there was a total of $33.00 missing.

The police sealed off the parking area and the vehicles were checked. There was no vehicle with a British Columbia license plate found.

The man seen at the donut shop was described by eyewitnesses as being 21 to 30 years old, with brown hair, possibly with a reddish tinge, scruffy looking, with scraggly sideburns, a poor complexion with some noticeable acne pimples or pock marks, particularly on the left side of his face. He had a longish mustache. He was 6'1" - 6'3" in height with a slim build, weighing between 145 – 185 pounds. He was said to be wearing prescription glasses, a black or dark-coloured cowboy hat, a dark-coloured, waist length coat, blue jeans and round-toed or cowboy boots. The eyewitnesses stated that he might have been wearing a pair of black or white work gloves, a pair of tan leather gloves and had a ring on the ring finger of his left hand. From the descriptions given by the witnesses, a composite drawing of the suspect was made by the police artist. The sketch was circulated through the media. As a result of the media publication of the composite drawing, the police received over 700 tips regarding possible suspects.

As it transpired, the twine used to strangle Barbara Stoppel was the only significant piece of physical evidence recovered from the scene. There can be no doubt that it matched the twine that was thrown from the bridge. Fibres from Barbara Stoppel's sweater were found imbedded in the twine thrown over the bridge. Identification of the manufacturer of the twine would be of importance to the case.

Apart from omitting the fundamentally important aspect of having the twine tested to identify with certainty the manufacturer, the police investigation regarding it was thorough. As a result of their inquiries, the police found that most people who viewed the twine were of the opinion that it had been manufactured by Berkley Canada. It is true that the Berkley company's officials, upon a visual inspection of the twine, said that it was not their twine. However, they did go on to say throughout the communications with them that, if a conclusive analysis were required, Berkley could run a test to determine whether the twine contained its tracer element. Berkley Canada and Berkley U.S. were careful to put a tracer element in their twine so that it could be established whether or not it was their twine in case of a lawsuit against them. The cost of the test was only a $100.00 and yet it was never performed.

The other major manufacturer of this type of twine, Powers Twines, stated that, from a visual inspection, the twine was their's. It was then assumed by the police that the Powers company manufactured the twine. Its plant was located in Washington State on the west coast and a major customer was B.C. Hydro. This twine was used to pull electric cables or wiring through conduits. Based on the assumption that the twine came from British Columbia, the police sought a suspect with links to that province. This was a significant conclusion that led to the investigation of Thomas Sophonow. The issue of the twine will be discussed at greater length later under a separate heading.

The police discovered that Thomas Sophonow had been in Winnipeg to visit his two-year-old daughter on the 23rd of December, 1981. He arrived in Winnipeg from Vancouver either late on the 22nd or early in the morning of the 23rd. He had given a ride to someone he knew as far as Portage la Prairie. He slept for a few hours in a vacant apartment which he believed to be occupied by a friend. When he got up on the 23rd, he drove around looking for a friend he could not locate. It is sufficient for our purposes that he visited his brother and sister-in-law, the Kleins, from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. He left with them a gift for his daughter. He spoke to his former wife, Nadine, at about 5:30 p.m. attempting unsuccessfully to make satisfactory arrangements to see his daughter.

Sometime after that, he was experiencing some trouble with his brakes. As a result, he went to the Canadian Tire garage on Pembina Highway. While there, he saw Mrs. Peasgood and her daughter. He shared his sandwich with her daughter. While he was waiting for his car, he on two occasions went to the nearby Safeway store and purchased red mesh Christmas stockings to give to children in Winnipeg hospitals. He called his mother in Vancouver from the phone in or near the Canadian Tire waiting room. He spoke to her from 7:52 to 7:56 p.m.

His time with the Kleins is confirmed and is important in light of statements made by the "McDonald's witnesses". They were to the effect that a tall man with a cowboy hat was in the restaurant for some time during the afternoon. He appeared to be watching the Ideal Donut Shop. The man they saw could not have been Thomas Sophonow.

The Winnipeg Police asked the Vancouver police to interview Thomas Sophonow. The interview was conducted by Detective Barnard. Although Detective Barnard found Thomas Sophonow to be a credible person, who was forthcoming and apparently willing to provide pictures of himself, samples of his hair, blood and anything that was required, there was a reason for further investigation. It arose from Thomas Sophonow's apparent statement that he could have been in the coffee shop where Barbara Stoppel was murdered sometime between 8:00 and 9:00 in the evening. Detective Barnard was careful to say that his notes of the interview with Sophonow were not verbatim. Further, the statement to Detective Barnard is somewhat ambiguous as to whether Thomas Sophonow was, indeed, in the Ideal Donut Shop.

In any event, a few days later, Sergeants Wawryk and Paulishyn arrived in Vancouver to interview Thomas Sophonow. Following a lengthy interrogation, lasting over four hours, he was placed under arrest and confined in the Vancouver lock-up. Unknown to him, Constable Black, a police officer (cell man) was placed in the same facility and spoke to him. More will be said of this interview and the statement made to Constable Black later.

For the present, it is sufficient to note that Mr. Whitley, the Senior Crown on the third trial, stated that the two most significant pieces of evidence linking Thomas Sophonow to the crime were his identification by eyewitnesses and his demonstration to the cell man as to how he locked the door of the donut shop. The frailty of those two aspects of the evidence will become apparent later in the course of a review of the evidence of the eyewitnesses and the initial interview conducted by Sergeants Wawryk and Paulishyn, including the subsequent statements made by Thomas Sophonow to Constable Black.

It would now be appropriate to consider a number of issues and the frailty of the conclusions that were drawn from them.

These will include:

1. the initial interview with Thomas Sophonow conducted by Sergeants Wawryk and Paulishyn;
2. the nature of the eye-witnesseyewitness identification;
3. the investigation of Terry Arnold as a suspect;
4. the lack of testing of the twine for the chemical tracer. That test would have demonstrated that it was not the Powers Company located in Washington State which manufactured the twine but Berkley & Company with a plant located in Portage la Prairie;
5. the evidence regarding timing;
6. the allegations of sexual assault made in the third trial;
7. the investigation of the alibi evidence;
8. the use of jailhouse informants;
9. the disclosures which Crown Counsel acknowledged ought to have been made to Defence Counsel based on the requirements of disclosure of 1982; and
10. the conduct of the trials.

 

In the review of these issues, I have attempted to make each of them complete in itself. The result of this decision is that some elements of the report may appear to be repetitious and for this, I apologize.

 

Disclaimer and Copyright