Case Summary
On October 6, 1983, a young couple from Germany were found shot to death on a trail some 32 kilometres west of Chetwynd, a northeastern British Columbia town.1 The victims, 22-year-old Andrea Scherps and 27-year-old Bernd Goehricke, had been hitchhiking across Canada.2
The following day, a pair of bloody jeans was retrieved from a garbage can about 1 kilometre “towards Chetwynd from the location of the bodies.”3 Forensic testing revealed that the blood on the jeans roughly matched that of Scherps and Goehricke.4 Police also learned that five traveller’s cheques belonging to the victims had been cashed, with forged signatures, on October 4 and 5.5 The fraudulent transactions took place along a route stretching southwards from Chetwynd.6
It was not until 1989 that Andy Rose came to police attention. Comments made by Mary Madonna Kelly, “who knew [Rose] well, and was related to him by marriage,” had turned investigative attention towards him.7 In summer 1983, Rose and Kelly had “both worked at a sod farm near Chetwynd,” where “[s]he became aware of considerable publicity about the discovery of the bodies in early and mid-October.”8 Five years later, Kelly told “a drug dealer, who was also a police informant”9 that Rose had come to her Chetwynd trailer, covered in blood, “in the early morning hours of October 3 or 4,” 1983.10 Kelly claimed that Rose confessed to having just killed two people by shooting them in the head.11
The RCMP contacted Kelly and requested that she get in touch with Rose, who now lived in Thompson, Manitoba.12 Kelly agreed to place a call to Rose that the RCMP would covertly record. On September 7, 1989, Kelly called Rose as agreed and asked him questions regarding his purported confession. At first it seemed she might have misremembered an event where Rose did come to her trailer, covered in blood – but only because his nose had just been injured in a bar fight. At one point Rose asked, “What are you talking about, Madonna?”, and later, “Are you on something?”13 The call went on for some time, until Rose essentially told Kelly that he did not remember any such event, “but if you say [so]”; however, he hadn’t killed anyone.14 That night, Rose was arrested on two murder charges.15
Rose’s trial began on April 19, 1994.16 He testified in his own defence, denying any involvement in the double murder. His evidence was that the alleged meeting and confession outside Kelly’s trailer simply never happened.17 In addition, the court heard evidence that none of the stolen travellers’ cheques had been cashed by Andy Rose.18
Excepting Kelly’s evidence, the Crown proffered nothing that specifically connected Rose to the tourists’ deaths. Indeed the prosecutor told the jurors that the “Crown’s case revolve[d] almost entirely on what she [had] to say.”19 Kelly testified at some length and provided vivid details of the alleged encounter. She claimed that Rose came to her trailer, dressed in jeans with rolled-up cuffs, which were covered in blood stains especially from the knees up to the waist. She stated that Rose then confessed to having committed a double homicide. Kelly claimed that his face had been scratched, consistent with defensive wounds, which he told her the female victim had caused. She further stated that Rose admitted to stealing the victims’ possessions, and that he had left their remains “on the side of the road near J.J.’s restaurant … near Chetwynd.”20 Finally, to ensure her silence, Rose had allegedly made death threats towards Kelly and her son.21
It soon became apparent that “[t]here was evidence … suggest[ing] Ms. Kelly was not a reliable historian.”22 Her evidence evolved on points pertaining to Rose’s appearance (for instance, “she was not [really] sure his jeans were rolled up”).23 Some of her account was accurate per se, but not in keeping with Rose’s alleged confession – notably, “there [was] photographic evidence that [Rose] had scratches on his face prior to the finding of the [victims’] bodies.”24 Moreover, forensic examination had not found blood or tissue under Scherps’ nails – that is, she would not have left defensive wounds on the perpetrator.25
More profoundly, some of Kelly’s colourful evidence had the potential to raise concerns in regards to reality testing (i.e., the ability to distinguish fantasy from truth). Kelly stated that when she went outside to meet Rose upon his arrival, she “specifically noticed there was a full moon or nearly full moon, and … [Rose] made a comment about werewolves and made a sound as such a creature might make.”26 She said that “his eyes were bulging which was not normal for him.”27 (In fact, “there was only a thin sliver of a moon on October 3 and 4, and no full moon until October 21.”28)
Nonetheless, on March 8, 1991, the jury found Rose guilty on two counts of second degree murder.29 He was sentenced to life imprisonment.30 Rose successfully appealed this outcome to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. In 1992, the court quashed his convictions and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge had not adequately instructed the jurors.31 In its reasons for judgment, the court pointed out numerous inconsistencies in Kelly’s testimony, which it regarded as “suspect.”32 For instance, the court discussed her evidence that Rose was attired in blood-stained jeans, which the Crown suggested he had worn whilst committing the murders. The court observed that, per Kelly’s account, Rose would have had to kill the victims, wear the incriminating jeans to her trailer approximately 31 kilometres away from the crime scene, “and then return … almost to where the bodies were found, to dispose of” the jeans in the garbage can, where they were later retrieved.33
At Rose’s second trial, Kelly’s testimony again comprised the heart of the Crown’s case. On April 26, 1994, the jury again found Rose guilty of two counts of second degree murder.34 He was again sentenced to life imprisonment. Rose appealed this conviction as well, but this time the court rejected his arguments. However, the court agreed to postpone its formal order dismissing Rose’s appeal, pending receipt of DNA test results that his counsel was pursuing for certain exhibits.35
Meanwhile, in August of 1997, the RCMP received a new lead: Vance Hill, a man from California, had confessed to his wife in 1983 that he had committed the murders.36 Hill had taken his life in 1985.37 Police reopened their investigation, and on December 15, 1997, Rose was released on bail after spending 7 years in prison.38
Also during this time period, the DNA testing results revealed that Rose’s genetic profile did not match the DNA that had been retrieved from one of the victims’ remains.39 As a result of this fresh evidence (that is, the third-party confession and DNA analysis), the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed course and overturned Rose’s convictions, ordering another new trial.40
In the lead-up to Rose’s third trial, the RCMP – with the consent of the Crown – conducted a “Mr. Big” sting operation with the aim of inducing him to confess.41 Undercover officers approached Rose while posing as members of a biker gang.42 They developed social relationships with him, and eventually he started running errands for the “gang.” Rose came to depend on the officers: since his release he had lived in poverty, but now he had a steady source of income and thought he was making friends with the group.43
Later Rose was told that a profitable job might come his way, but first he would need to meet with “Al” – the leader of the “gang” – to discuss the murder charges.44 On July 16 and 17, 1999, Rose met with “Al” while the RCMP covertly recorded him.45 Rose was told that “Al” could make the Crown’s case fall apart, such that he would not have to be tried a third time – so long as he confessed to the murders in every detail. The officers sought to increase the attractiveness of this offer by undermining Rose’s confidence in his prospects for acquittal, notwithstanding the Hill confession.46
Dr. Gudjonsson, an expert on false confessions who later reviewed the covert recordings, found that the RCMP utilized “relentless pressure, abusive language, threats, inducement … and psychological manipulation” in order to extract their desired confession.47 Rose was met with hostility as he repeatedly refused to confess to a crime that he had not committed. The officers aggressively insisted he was lying. They told him that if he did not confess, he would go back to prison.48 Eventually they took Rose, an alcoholic, to a bar where they finally obtained their confession.49 Through the course of the Mr. Big operation, the RCMP “played on [Rose’s] vulnerabilities and distress … to break down his persistent claims of innocence.”50
Fortunately for Rose, his resulting false confession was never used in court. The Crown chose not to proceed with a third trial, in light of further DNA analysis showing that Rose’s genetic profile did not match that of any samples tested in connection with the murders. The Crown stayed the proceedings against Rose on January 22, 2001.51
Rose’s lawyer, Bob Buckingham, stated in a 2009 media interview that the government had not agreed to compensate Rose for his wrongful conviction, despite their repeated entreaties. He made these comments soon after the airing of a Fifth Estate documentary that drew public attention back to Rose’s case. Buckingham expressed his hopes that state actors might be more amenable to reaching an agreement in this climate. As of this writing, there is no indication that anything came of their efforts.52