Case Summary
Gregory Parsons was born in September 1971 to parents who had a troubled relationship. Parsons’ mother, Catherine Carroll, lived with mental illness including histrionic personality disorder, obsessive and hoarding behaviours, suicidal ideation, and addictions to alcohol and prescription medications.1 Parsons lived with his father after his parents separated in 1977. When his father moved from their Newfoundland community to Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Parsons went to live with his mother. Though Carroll’s behaviour was challenging to address and included a manipulative relational style, Parsons coped “remarkably well” living with her, and she was able to address her alcohol addiction with considerable success.2
In March 1990, Parsons moved out of Carroll’s home to live in an apartment with friends.3 Parsons had been dating his girlfriend, Tina Doyle, for several years, and planned to move in with her family in 1991.4 Carroll’s manipulative behaviour patterns continued through this time period – for instance, she called Doyle’s workplace at the Royal Bank of Canada to accuse her of “giving out bank secrets”, an allegation that she later admitted was false. Parsons was nonetheless able to maintain a good relationship with his mother, visiting and calling her regularly.5
On New Year’s Eve, 1990, Parsons went out to celebrate with Doyle’s family and called Carroll just after midnight to wish her a Happy New Year.6 He returned to his apartment at around 4:00 a.m., let out his dog, and went to bed, waking up in the early afternoon of January 1, 1991.7 Parsons went to see his mother at about 7:00 p.m. that night, but she did not answer the door and he assumed that she was out. The next day, Parsons tried to call his mother several times, but was unable to reach her. He went to Carroll’s home to check on her at 10:30 p.m. When she did not answer the door, he popped out a front window to gain entry to the house. Carroll’s dog led him upstairs, where he found the bathroom door closed and locked from the inside. Parsons punched the lock to release it and found his mother dead, covered in blood and lying in a pool of dried blood on the bathroom floor. Parsons ran outside to Doyle, who was waiting in the car, and screamed that his mother was dead.8
Parsons called 911, and first responders descended on the scene. Police, other emergency personnel, and various community members all began arriving at the crime scene, until a total of 18 people had congregated in the house.9 Carroll’s home was meticulously clean and orderly: besides the bathroom where she had been found, the sole exception was a visibly damaged basement window, with the curtain rod and curtain hanging down, an outer glass pane partially broken, and a latch broken off. Police dismissed this window as a possible entry point for the murderer, after a cursory visual inspection noting the window’s small size, cobwebs, and apparently undisturbed dust.10
The lead investigator soon latched onto Parsons as a suspect. During his first police interview on January 3, Parsons spoke honestly about his difficult relationship with his mother. He described Carroll’s psychiatric history and compulsive behaviours. He was open with police about an incident where Carroll had insisted that he come at once to retrieve his remaining belongings from her home after he had moved out. She called again shortly after, stating that she had placed his items on the front lawn. When picking up his possessions, Parsons discovered that his VCR had not been placed outside. Carroll physically blocked him when he attempted to retrieve it, so he tried to maneuver her out of his path, accidentally causing her to trip and fall. He immediately took her to the hospital.11
Parsons also said in this interview that his mother would never have left the damaged window in that state. Still, police took no steps to investigate further.12 They did, however, collect a number of hearsay statements from Carroll’s acquaintances, recounting how she had allegedly viewed her son as a threat to her life. Notably, Carroll’s lawyer and psychiatrist each gave police statements to this effect.13 Carroll’s lawyer stated that:
On one occasion she told me how Greg [Parsons] held a knife to her and he told her that some day he would kill her and when he did he would cut her up in small pieces.14
The lawyer had advised Carroll to contact police, but she chose not to do so; “she did take steps to obtain a peace bond [i.e., restraining order] but did not follow through.”15
The psychiatrist described a “conflictional” [sic] relationship between Carroll and Parsons.16 He stated his belief that Parsons had violent tendencies towards his mother, and that Carroll had feared he would “hurt or kill her.”17 This said, the psychiatrist had documented in a previous psychiatric assessment of Carroll that she “had a tendency to exaggerate and dramatize all [her] . . . problems” and was “demonstrative, manipulative, self-destructive and easily excitable” in her presentation.18
In “less than 24 hours after discovering the body”, the investigators concluded that Parsons had murdered Carroll.19 From this point forward, police were “securely ensconced in a tunnel,” which so distorted their perception of Parsons’ every action as to verge on the nonsensical.20 For instance, immediately before a polygraph test that Parsons had agreed to take, police questioned him in a “verbally and mentally abusive” manner.21 Parsons’ results were then analyzed and police concluded he had failed – because, among other things, he thought that his mother had killed herself and so stated that “the autopsy would show it was not a murder.”22 Officers somehow interpreted this response “as establishing that he knew she died of a heart attack brought on by blood loss, which was the autopsy finding.”23 Similarly, “[i]t was . . . viewed as ‘very suspicious’ that he reported his [last] telephone conversation with his mother . . . as ending with her saying ‘Goodbye’”, which was bizarrely interpreted as having an ominous “air of finality”.24
The police theory grew to reflect not the evidence but rather their pre-existing belief in Parsons’ guilt. They theorized that Parsons had returned to his home in the early morning hours of New Year’s Day, become enraged for some reason, retrieved a table knife, walked over two kilometres to Carroll’s house, used his key to enter, committed the mother, and returned home.25 Police did not pursue meaningful investigation including: forensic analysis of the blood, Carroll’s remains, or a hair sample found in the bathroom; conducting a proper search for the murder weapon; investigating footprints found at the scene; or following up regarding the incongruous broken window. Instead, investigators proceeded to collect many further hearsay statements purportedly corroborating how much Carroll feared her son.26
On January 10, 1991, Parsons was arrested for Carroll’s murder. At the station, he was stripped to his underclothes and subjected to hours of police “mind games,” “mental abuse,” and “torture.”27 Parsons contacted counsel, who told police that his client wished to exercise his constitutional right to silence. Police, on the advice of Crown counsel, resumed the interrogation once his lawyer had left.28 He was then forced to walk up a hill from the station to the detention facility with his hands cuffed behind his back, inadequately clothed, through the “bitterly cold” winter weather; police laughed at him when he would fall forward into the snow.29
Parsons was released on bail pending trial on January 21, after which police and prosecutors engaged in a pattern of harassment towards the defence. Parsons’ counsel was told that his disclosure brief could not be photocopied, so the defence had to spend over 61 hours transcribing the file contents.30 The Crown also sought, unsuccessfully, to have Parsons’ lawyer removed due to an alleged conflict of interest.31
Parsons’ trial commenced on September 23, 1993, over two years after Carroll’s death; the prosecutor had been assigned to the file only two months prior.32 “[W]ithout any meaningful analysis of the reliability of these statements,”33 the trial judge allowed into evidence most of the 53 hearsay statements that police had obtained from Carroll’s social circle, alleging that Parsons was a threat to her safety.34 As the evidence unfolded, numerous inconsistencies and contradictions, including “complete fabrications,” became apparent in Carroll’s statements.35 Over the course of Parsons’ trial, the prosecution displayed “overzealous overreaching” for a conviction – a mindset seemingly endorsed by the trial judge, whose hostility toward the defence was made clear in “petulant and unfortunate” comments.36
At the conclusion of the trial, the Crown addressed the jury and asked: “if Greg Parsons did not kill his mother, who did?”37 On February 15, 1994, the jury found Parsons guilty of second degree murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 15 years.38
Parsons appealed his conviction and was granted bail pending appeal, which would not be heard for the next two years.39 In the interim, police continued their harassment of Parsons. He was arrested for assault causing bodily harm solely on the word of the actual aggressor, and was mauled by a police dog and seriously injured, purportedly in the course of a minor cannabis investigation.40
On March 11, 1996, the Newfoundland Court of Appeal quashed Parsons’ conviction and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge had erred in admitting the voluminous hearsay statements with no reliability assessment, and that the Crown had misled the jurors by suggesting that the onus was on Parsons to find an alternative suspect.41
In anticipation of Parsons’ retrial, a number of exhibits from the crime scene were forensically tested. DNA analysis was performed, which exonerated Parsons: the DNA retrieved from the crime scene did not match his genetic sample, but rather indicated an unknown male.42
In February 1998, the prosecution stayed the murder charge, and Parsons was acquitted in November of that year after the Crown called no evidence against him. The Newfoundland Minister of Justice and Attorney General apologized to Parsons and issued a public statement that he “had no involvement in the murder of Catherine Carroll.”43
In 2002, Brian Doyle – a childhood friend of Parsons’ who had frequently entered and left Carroll’s home via the basement window – confessed to Ontario undercover officers that he had murdered Carroll. Doyle told police that he broke in through the window that had been found damaged. Police investigating Doyle’s confession found the murder weapon near Carroll’s home, between her residence and Doyle’s. Police had not searched this area previously, as they exclusively covered the distance between Carroll’s house and Parsons’ apartment.44 Doyle was subsequently tried and convicted for Carroll’s murder.45
In 2006, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer released a Commission of Inquiry report regarding three Newfoundland wrongful convictions, one of which was Parsons’. (The report also addressed Ronald Dalton’s and Randy Druken’s wrongful convictions.) This report revealed a litany of investigative deficiencies, inappropriate advocacy, and abusive conduct that beset the Parsons investigation, principally arising from police and prosecutorial tunnel vision.46 Parsons received $1.3 million in compensation from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in regards to his wrongful conviction.47