Thursday, September 22, 2011

Toope! There it is!

   One of the worst crimes in Montreal in the 1990s was the killing of an elderly retired minister Rev. Frank Toope, 75 and his wife Jocelyn Toope, 70.
   The beating murder was committed in the early morning of April 2, 1995 by three kids aged 13, 14 and 15.
   The elder two claim to have been under the effects of LSD at this time, although this claim doesn't exactly clear the bar of credibility (see comments) as the lysergic tripping experience wasn't exactly that common in that time and place. One of the teen trio had suggested that the couple be targeted because the old man didn't tip the kid when he delivered his newspapers.
   The perpetrators' names have never been revealed for legal reasons and they will not be revealed here.
   It might be worth nothing that they were subsequently re-arrested for other crimes afterwards but we're not sure what has become of them since. The oldest would have just turned 30 this year. Anyway, the address of the reprehensible Toope massacre has never been published, not sure why that would be kept confidential when other similar cases had their locations out there right away. (It is one of the 5Ws, dontchaknow!- Chimples).
   Anyway it's 242 St. Charles.
   The Toopes came to the West Island in 1968. Frank was from Newfoundland and his wife was a Brit. Frank retired as rector of the St. Mary's Anglican Church in Kirkland in 1989. Their daughter Allison was 33 at the time and their son Stephen was 37 and was dean of McGill Law School. Their funeral attracted over 1,300 people.
   May the victims rest in peace and may the perpetrators dedicate their lives to good things.


Marc said...

A small street benind Kirkland city hall was renamed Frank Toope st. not long after the crime.

UrbanLegend said...

Laws which prohibit publishing the names of "underaged criminals"--including graffiti vandals--should be thrown out once and for all. A criminal act is a criminal act no matter the age of the perpetrator. Juveniles need the fear of public exposure as a deterrent. In the U.K., the photos of underage vandals are regularly published in the newspapers.

Furthermore, regarding trial procedure in general, our so-called "media publication bans" are ridiculous and discriminatory. Why is it that any member of the public can visit a court proceding, see both the accused and the victims, know their names and addresses, etc., yet we as members of the same public who for whatever reason are unable to visit that same courtroom are required to be fed blanked-out faces and names, censored video and photos? Does this mean that only members of the public who are "privileged by convenience" are privy to the facts of a case?

Of course, the truth will often come out regardless, for no matter how determined our justice system attempts to bury the so-called "Lola Alimony Case" by hiding the identities of the alleged victim and the alleged accused, a little bit of Google digging will reveal all. Surely by now no one will be surprised to know exactly who they are?

How many know that 14-year-old Stephen Truscott's name was actually published in the newspapers early in the 1959 Lynne Harper murder investigation, but thereafter his identity was kept from the public for many weeks?

Anonymous said...

The youngest murderer was apparently the ringleader.
According to my sibs who went to school with this waste of flesh, all 3 of the group were high on cocaine when they went to rob the joint.
The story they were telling classmates at Beaconsfield High School (I think one kid went to Mac) was that they went to rob the joint because the couple were away on vacation -- and were surprised to find the Toopes had come home early.
The next school day the murders starting bragging about their weekend exploits.

I distinctly recall the mayor at the time blaming inner-city criminals who had taken public transit to commit a heinous crime, which I have always thought was one of the more ridiculous statements ever uttered.

Last I heard, the two older goofballs were arrested and convicted for transporting drugs.

Kristian said...

The newspapers reported that the two older ones were high on LSD. The oldest one carried the baseball bat and the 14 year old made a reference to murder even before the duo were clubbed to death. In the testimony the 14 year old (I think) said that he heard at the donut shop the old man saying he would be out of town. The eldest one or two had apparently already committed several b&e's.

I was going to ring up their lawyer Hans Gervais to see what became of them but can't seem to find his #. (where's Kate when I need her?)

Anonymous said...

Apparantly they were not on LSD it was simply used as an "excuse" to get more lenient sentencing.
The youngest one while putting on gloves made a comment that cops dont check for prints for B&E but they do for murder. There was a rumor going around the west that two of the boys were hospitalized soon after being put into a facility. The story I heard was that they were forced to swallow all sorts of pieces of metal by the other kids. (nuts,bolts, pieces of scrap. etc)
Can only hope its true.

Anonymous said...

The father of 2 of the boys has been convicted of stealing from his employer. I am sure their home environment was where they learned their lack of respect for others.

Anonymous said...

Le bottin des avocats

Me Hans Gervais
Service des poursuites pénales du Canada
Tour de la Bourse
800 Place Victoria
Bureau 1610
Montréal QC H4Z 1E8

Téléphone : (514) 283-3811 poste 249
Télécopieur : (514) 283-3848

blamma said...

I always wondered what happened to these little shits. I saw this story on "Tueur si proche" and i think it said that after their release, that they continued to get into the other user said, one of them came from a really bad environment and sounded like a sociopath from the getgo.

jesse brigden said...

An ex girlfriend of mine dated one of these fuckers. He was seemingly very normal and would get extremely remorseful whenever it was mentioned. I personally didn't buy it and disassociated with my ex (We had stayed good friends after we broke up) for her poor judgement since she knew of his past prior to dating him.