The Killer Handyman: The True Story of Serial Killer William Patrick Fyfe (Crimes Canada: True Crimes That Shocked the Nation Book 7)

by C. L. Swinney

  Based on evidence police had at the time, William was labeled a “person of interest” for the murder of Ms. Glen, which was why he was not arrested immediately. The police department, who’d essentially lost all support from the community, actually made a splendid move. Law enforcement was publicly abused during this case but ultimately ended up making several good calls that would prove crucial in the apprehension of William Fyfe, the collection of evidence and a confession from him solving five additional homicides.

  Holding information obtained during a murder case is always a judgment call. Right or wrong, it’s done in every homicide case because there’s an art in identifying suspects, gathering enough evidence for a solid case, and then planning an operation to apprehend them. Similar to a dicey poker game, an experienced homicide investigator never plays all his cards right away. Sometimes holding leads tight to the chest will backfire, but the majority of the time it works to the benefit of the case and the investigator. Unless you’ve actually worn a badge and worked homicide cases, you’ll never understand the tremendous amount of pressure and grief we’ve experienced. Ultimately, we want the same thing the public wants.

  After identifying their person of interest, the Montreal Police Services (MPS) contacted the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) regarding evidence and William Fyfe. Preliminary information suggested William was staying in Ontario, the purpose for the joint mission. The OPP and MP assembled a team to investigate the four Montreal murders with the focus squarely on William Fyfe. Homicide investigators were intelligent enough to recognize the case required delicate handling while moving forward. Their main task involved determining whether Fyfe was more than a person of interest and if he was responsible for the other three murders. If so, they’d need to develop enough probable cause to secure an arrest warrant for him, and lastly, they’d need to locate and arrest him.

  This is a difficult time during a murder investigation. Stress levels jump high, excitement pushes investigators to work long hours, but it’s also a dangerous time. Many times cases get botched at this point, and killers end up walking based on mistakes or shoddy investigation techniques.

  Although the community and the two police departments were on edge, the fact a strong lead - the fingerprint - had been developed re-energized the case. Every day that passed without a suspect or arrest continued to frustrate the community, but progress behind the scenes was being made.

  In fact, William Fyfe would later be followed and apprehended. Let’s take a look at the crimes he committed in greater detail before discussing how he was apprehended.

  The Crimes

  With respect to my research on the cases of Nicole Raymond, Hazel Scattolon, Suzanne-Marie Bernier, Louise Poupart-Leblanc, and Pauline Laplante, not much content was available that accurately depicted the full details of these terrible crimes, at least much more than I’ve already shared above. I learned that physical evidence had been collected at the scenes in the form of DNA, but the DNA database at the time was small because not many samples had been collected during the 1970s. DNA from the scenes was tested, but no match was made, so the evidence remained booked and did not provide any leads. No witnesses came forward for these five murders, and no further evidence or leads surfaced over the course of twenty years. Such a long period of time had passed that many people, including the families of the victims and law enforcement, believed the cases would never be solved.

  Unfortunately, the circumstances of these five murders serves as a reminder to one of the general public’s complaints when it comes to law enforcement handling “cold” murder cases. “Cold” cases collect dust because resources and leads are scarce; however, if someone confesses to the killings, and the confession is deemed reliable, the murder investigation will be re-opened. If evidence exists that can validate a confession from the suspect, the suspect is normally charged with the murder. This is how it’s done in the United States.

  In the case of William Fyfe, he later gave a chilling description of how he committed these five murders. The accurate details he described, and later his DNA located at some of the crime scenes, confirmed William Fyfe did, in fact, kill these women. However, he confessed to those murders after the court case concluded for the four murders. Therefore, he was credited with the killings but was not charged with first-degree murder because it didn’t matter according to the Crown. He could kill one or a thousand people and receive the same amount of punishment. This type of a loophole in Canadian law would drive me nuts. I’d have to shy away from being a homicide investigator in Canada because I would not deal well with a perpetrator not being punished for taking five human lives.

  The focus for the remainder of this investigation revolves around the four murders that occurred between October and December of 1999. Let me paint you a picture of when the case of William Fyfe finally took shape for local law enforcement. It won’t be pretty, but it’s accurate and real.

  Anna Yarnold

  Senneville, Quebec, is a tiny, yet tight-knit community located on Montreal’s West Island. The area is extremely quiet and any mention of a serious crime, or much crime at all, is non-existent. It’s October, and the persistent cold winds have pushed fallen leaves along their merry way. Substantial homes dot the waterfront and are sprinkled inland. Life is good and time cruises by. Residents, most of them living in the area for quite a while, know each other well. They watch each other’s kids grow and look out for one another. People are out and about walking their dogs. Children play catch or tag in the streets before it gets too cold and the snow begins to fall.

  Approximately three o’clock in the afternoon on October 14, 1999, fifty-nine-year-old Anna Yarnold, a longtime resident and well-respected member of the community, was frantically heading to the veterinarian with her beloved dog, Trooper. She’d discovered a lump on Trooper and was concerned about the dog’s well-being. The vet examined Trooper and concluded the lump was dangerous and needed to be removed as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the cost was high and the procedure could be problematic. Upset about the sad news, Anna returned home, contemplating what to do next for Trooper. She wanted the best for her faithful pup.

  At 5:30, Anna’s daughter Sarah called to check on her mom and asked about Trooper’s status. Sarah later recalled that she had told her mother everything would be okay with Trooper, and they’d be fine. Sarah had no idea what was about to happen to her mother.

  The next morning, Sarah and her father, Robert, who did not live with his wife, began calling to check on Anna and Trooper. When Anna didn’t answer or return their calls, the family began to worry. Anna had always enjoyed sharing news about everyday life with her family, so it was bizarre that she hadn’t returned their calls.

  Late in the evening, Robert decided to check on his wife’s well-being and drove to her home. When he arrived, he noticed the car in the driveway, and he knocked on the door. No answer. Eventually, he entered the home and noticed right away that her dog, Trooper, had not greeted him. That was strange and caused him to search the home. Robert located Trooper hiding behind a bedroom door upstairs, but he still hadn’t found his wife. While heading to the backyard, he called out her name and stopped dead in his tracks. Anna lay in a pool of her own blood, her skull caved in and a cement flower pot (later identified as the murder weapon) next to her head. Once the shock of the scene wore off, Robert called the police. His wife, one of the few people he cherished in life, had died a violent death. He was beside himself with grief.

  Numerous police and investigators responded to Anna’s home. Within minutes, once they completed their initial walk-through, they determined Anna’s death had likely been caused during a robbery. Initial reports noted no forced entry, but a struggle had ensued in her bathroom. Anna’s glasses were found in the bathroom sink. They believe she had temporarily escaped her attacker, who held her by her hair. Clumps of her hair were found in the bathroom and near the kitchen. Anna fled to the backyard, where she apparently tripped and fell while running for her li
fe. The attacker jumped on top of her, choked her and punched her repeatedly in the face (based on the bruising). Then he grabbed the nearby concrete flower pot and struck her over the head repeatedly. Blunt force trauma took Anna’s life.

  After the killer murdered her, he went back inside the house, rifled through her purse in her bedroom upstairs, and took some items including her bank card. Details of the homicide were gruesome and even surprising to the investigators. The killer then exited the house and walked away without anyone reporting his heinous acts.

  Robert was taken to the police station and questioned at length. The investigators believed him to be the primary suspect in Anna’s death. Therefore, they did not initially spend any more time looking for other possible suspects. Eventually, his daughter, Sarah, was asked to report to the police station where her dad was being questioned. No one had told her about the murder. Sarah was asked about her parents’ relationship and their family life. Someone finally blurted out the reason for the interrogation. “Well, your mother is dead.” The poor handling of her notification remained an issue with Sarah for many years. She should have been told immediately that her mother was murdered, and the police should not have treated her like a suspect.

  Sarah and her father remained at the police station for many hours providing statements. When they were both allowed to leave, Robert was asked to stay in town. The case was not highly publicized in the news initially, but it came out the following morning and caused understandable concern. The police would have loved to have had DNA or a fingerprint from the flower pot used to kill Anna, but obtaining that kind of evidence from a cement object wasn’t possible, especially if the killer wore gloves. Frustration mounted within the police department because they wanted answers as badly as the public. At that point, they had nothing to work with. The investigation continued, although no new evidence had been discovered, and there were no additional leads for the police to follow.

  Monique Gaudreau

  Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, Quebec. Late in October of 1999, residents of the town, bordered by Lake Lac des Sables, prepared for winter. Picturesque and trendy, it is located a hundred kilometers north of Montreal. Because of the opportunities for year-round fun, it grew as a tourist destination. The economy had grown along with the influx of tourists, and the area offered amenities such as boating, fishing, and horseback riding in the summer and winter activities like dogsled racing, skating, and ice hockey. Locals knew each other well and embraced the visitors because tourism helped their town grow.

  At 10:25 on the morning of October 29, 1999, people who worked with Monique Gaudreau, a nurse at a local hospital, began to be concerned. She had not shown up to work, a highly unusual situation for her since she enjoyed her job and was normally punctual. Phone calls were made, but no one had seen or heard from her since the end of shift on the previous day. Co-workers took the next step and called Monique’s sister to see if she knew where Monique was. They were concerned something was not right and became increasingly so because Monique’s sister also had not heard from her.

  During a phone conversation on the previous night, Monique had actually mentioned to her sister that she would be at work the following day. Hoping to find out her sister’s status, she drove to Monique’s apartment and let herself in with the the extra key she had. The apartment checked out clear until she reached the bedroom. Monique’s brutally battered body was sprawled at the foot of her bed. Blood still dripped from the wall nearby her sister’s lifeless body. Monique’s torso and head were mutilated, her clothes had been pulled off around her waist, and she’d been stabbed numerous times.

  Stunned, Monique’s sister called the police, who arrived immediately. A forensic biologist with law enforcement, Jacinthe Prevost, showed up, along with Montreal Police Services Commander, Andre Bouchard. Prevost found the scene and apparent struggle to be overwhelmingly destructive. She counted approximately fifty-five stab wounds to Monique. Prevost and Bouchard were equally concerned that the carnage was not the work of an average murderer. The perpetrator of this horrendous crime had surely been a sick individual who killed in a fit of rage. Images in that room stuck with all who had been at the scene for the rest of their lives. Prevost also mentioned that it appeared Monique had been sexually violated after she died. That thought sent a chill throughout the law enforcement community.

  Notes in the file indicated no forced entry, no fingerprints, and the murder weapon was not left at the scene. If I were to arrive and investigate a similar scene, I’d have been dejected and flat out angry. Someone would have to talk me off the ledge. The public can’t imagine the frustration that consumes investigators and those close to the case in these situations. Witnessing and studying a scene where a person has been savagely killed right in front of you, takes a toll on everyone concerned. Police and forensics experts consider the victim and their families. Having no clues, nothing to work with, would have bothered me to no end.

  After the scene had been secured and dusted for clues, additional information surfaced, revealing several significant pieces of information pertaining to the murder.

  In the landing area near the front door entrance to the home, a bloody shoe print was discovered. This had to be from the suspect because it was in Monique’s blood. Secondly, police discovered blood droplets from the front door of the home leading toward the side of the house, likely the route the killer took when fleeing the scene. The investigators surmised that while the suspect stabbed Monique in pure rage, he also cut himself in the process. Initial tests confirmed the blood belonged to a male.

  While the police and forensic staff aggressively investigated this murder, they still had no idea whether it was linked to Anna Yarnold’s case because Yarnold was not stabbed or sexually assaulted like Monique had been. As they tore apart the crime scene looking for leads, further disaster struck in another nearby community.

  Theresa Shanahan

  Laval, Quebec. In November of 1999, the largest suburb of Montreal, separated from the mainland to the north by the Rivière des Mille Îles, and from the Island of Montreal to the south by the Rivière des Prairies, became fully immersed in winter. The area, well-known for technology centered on pharmaceutical, industrial, and retail sectors, boasted four significant industrial park centers. Among the most famous attractions in Laval was the Cosmodome, a location featuring both Space Camp Canada and the Space Science Center, which opened to the public in December of 1994. Tourists and those seeking to be involved in the technological boom poured into the community, forming a unique atmosphere.

  About ten o’clock that morning, workers at a local firm became puzzled at the absence of their accountant, fifty-five-year-old Theresa Shanahan. Shanahan’s co-workers had phoned her home numerous times, to no avail. One of them later told police of their concerns and asked if they could meet at Theresa’s home to check on her. When the police arrived, three or four local newspapers were stacked at the front door. Apparently, Theresa had either taken a trip or hadn’t left the apartment for a few days. The police officer convinced the building concierge to open the door to Shanahan’s apartment. When they all entered, sadly, they located her body lying in bed in a large pool of blood. The scene was too much, even for the officer, who backed out and called for back-up.

  Joining the additional staff and police investigators who arrived was biologist, Jacinthe Prevost. Upon entering the scene, she immediately noted similarities between it and the crime scene at Monique Gaudreau’s home. Theresa had been sexually assaulted and stabbed numerous times. Prevost’s initial assessment concluded that Theresa had been stabbed approximately thirty-two times. The extreme brutality of the scene convinced Prevost and local law enforcement that the person responsible for her murder was likely the same one who’d killed Monique Gaudreau. That observation fueled speculation heard at the police departments and in the public…a serial killer was preying on women in the Montreal area.

  Unique to this crime scene was the fact the killer stole Theresa’s
jewelry and bank cards. This again made the investigators believe Theresa’s murder had been senselessly committed during a robbery. As the scene was being processed, that evening and into the next few days, police were notified that Theresa’s bank card had been used the night before to withdraw five hundred dollars prior to midnight and another five hundred just after midnight. At the time, it was the daily limit for cash withdrawal at ATMs. The killer, aware of the restriction, had waited until close to midnight to wipe out Theresa’s bank account. Law enforcement responded to the bank where Theresa’s card had been used and obtained a grainy photograph of the suspect.

  The image depicted was clearly a man wearing a hooded sweatshirt, making it impossible to identify him. Exhibiting no visible distinguishing marks, the suspect appeared medium build, approximately five feet ten inches tall. It was also noted that the killer had to know Theresa’s PIN number to access her account. He either knew her or had tortured her to get the information before killing her. If this were merely a robbery attempt, why would the killer murder Theresa after she had given him her PIN number?

  Around the same time of this investigation, Sarah, the daughter of Anna Yarnold, noticed her mother’s bank card had also been used after her death. She alerted the police who quickly obtained photos from the cash machine where Anna’s card had been used. They found a similar image of an adult male wearing a hooded sweatshirt. The public anticipated the release of the photo, but when it was released, most people were frustrated because the image showed very little detail. Nevertheless, the investigators were able to determine the suspect was a white male adult, approximately five feet ten inches tall, and at the time of Anna Yarnold’s death, he had a beard. This was significant because it was another clue about the identity of the killer, and it ruled out the possibility of Anna’s husband, Robert. He’d never worn a beard. Although Robert was eventually ruled out as his wife’s killer, officials never apologized for how he’d been treated.