Hann responds to questions about the isolation Jennifer might have been feeling and the apparent lack of interest he showed in his daughter during that time: “I was working, so I did not know much, but I always reminded her to do the review of all her lessons to prepare for school,” he says, explaining that during this time she was expected to go over her school notes, of which, of course, there were none, and practise piano in anticipation of some upcoming tests.
But truthfully, any sympathy garnered by these revelations only goes so far: isolation, after all, is no excuse for murder. Jennifer’s lawyer, Paul Cooper, also spends time going over Jennifer’s strict upbringing and “scheduled” lifestyle growing up. Later, when one person in the courtroom that day is asked how the testimony about Jennifer’s rigid upbringing affected him, he says that it was nothing he didn’t face as a boy. “It’s no more strict than anything I was raised with,” he says. He is not alone in this sentiment. Numerous female journalists of Asian and South Asian background leave the courtroom audibly singing from the same songbook, remarking how much stricter their upbringings were. “That’s nothing! My dad used to …” is heard more than once.
Always referring to Jennifer as “my daughter” and rarely, if ever, by her name, Hann does say that prior to the murder, he requested that Bich bring Jennifer “closer” to the family to help her forget about her past. “She started to think about the future again,” he tells the court “I told my wife during this time … there’s time to take her out so that mother and daughter would have time to spend together which would help … her sadness subside, bring the family back to Jennifer and Jennifer back to the family. That was my hope. When there were mistakes … made, I showed my frustration, but she’s my daughter … Because with your daughter you always forgive and forget.” Like other fathers who have tried to keep their daughters away from “bad apples,” Hann likely figured that, once Jennifer immersed herself back in education, surrounded by young people striving for success, regained some of her self-confidence, and began looking forward to a new and exciting career, she would get over Daniel and be able to move on with her life.
As part of Hann’s plan, in mid-October 2010, the family ventured off on a road trip together to Boston to attend a wedding. The following weekend Jennifer went to Ottawa and Montreal with her mother and an aunt.
Despite Hann’s assurances, though, Jennifer’s defence will reveal the significant resentment she felt toward her father during this time. Simultaneously, her defence will likely obscure her true feelings toward her mother, suggesting that she only planned to kill her father, making all interactions with Bich positive ones.
When the questioning turns to the behaviour of his daughter on the night of the home invasion, Hann says he saw his daughter speaking with one of the intruders “like a friend, softly.”
Jennifer’s lawyer, Paul Cooper, eventually stands up in preparation for one of the most difficult cross-examinations of his life. In any cross, a lawyer has two main goals: to elicit favourable testimony, and to impeach a witness’s credibility. Any lawyer who aggressively pursues the latter with a witness like Hann would be a fool. One must always be aware of a phenomenon police call “victim blaming,” which, in this case, would likely alienate most, if not all of the jurors. Cooper is left with only one option: to gain favourable facts by gently nudging Hann into admitting that a number of uncontrollable factors left not only his judgment and memory, but also his eyesight severely impaired on the night in question. To do this, Cooper has to walk a tightrope, attempting to throw a number of Hann’s assertions into doubt without appearing to pressure, badger, or speak to him in a condescending manner. After all, from the entire courtroom’s perspective, Hann is the ultimate sympathetic character — a widower through no fault of his own and a victim of the most cold-blooded alleged murder plot any juror can fathom. Furthermore, his age and difficulty with the English language make him appear all the more vulnerable to the lawyer’s questions.
Cooper speaks in a respectful tone and spends considerable time gaining trust and showing sympathy while simultaneously attempting to create the narrative that Hann’s testimony can’t be relied on. This proves to be a monumental task. In a soft and calming voice, Cooper seeks to demonstrate that the murder was the result of a robbery gone wrong. “You came as a political refugee from Vietnam, immigrated to Canada, you are Canadian,” Cooper says. “Like other Canadians who come and create our fabric from all over the world, you come with dreams. We talked about freedom, but you also had a dream about your family: that they would do better than you. They will never have to risk going through what you and your wife went through when you came to Canada.”
After responding “correct” to each assertion made by Cooper, Hann finally speaks: “I hoped that the future of the following generation would be better than mine.”
“Would you agree with me that this is sometimes called the ‘immigrant’s dream’?” Cooper asks. “You and your wife had worked hard. You and your wife worked in different jobs to get to the career you both had in order to own your own home. You and your wife were working hard to provide opportunities to fulfill the dream you had for both your son and daughter. You had hoped your daughter was pursuing the hopes and dreams you had for her.”
Hann’s response is tinged with disdain: “That’s correct, and I also hoped that my daughter was a good person.”
When Cooper comes to the discovery of the lies and the eventual ultimatum, with Hann pronouncing those fateful words, Hann says: “Any father put in that situation would have been very upset. It was in my anger that I made that statement. But it does not mean that I would not have cared about my children. I wanted solely for my daughter … to have a successful future. My daughter always maintained that she wanted to be a pharmacist.”
Hann then explains the ominous moment when he delivered the statement that will mark the dividing line between what the Crown will allege are two Jennifers — the deceptive one and the murderous one: “When I die, you can do whatever you want.”
“Human nature at a time when a person is angry, it’s not easy to control the anger,” Hann further explains. “Yes, in my anger I did state that. I was very upset, because all of our efforts had been focused on her and given to her to attend school, and she did not, and she lived with another person. I told her to sever that relationship and return to school. I told Jennifer that she had to cease the relationship with Daniel Wong.”
When the conversation returns to the night in question, Cooper is able to establish doubt concerning Hann’s version of events, but to what avail is unclear. He spends a considerable amount of time trying to discredit Hann’s statements about Jennifer and her captor speaking in a “friendly” manner. He continually suggests that Hann didn’t have ample time or viewpoint, especially without his glasses, to make this observation. His eyesight was too poor, the glimpse too brief. He suggests there wasn’t sufficient light for nearsighted Hann to see Jennifer, who he proposes was too far away from him. Furthermore, the event was traumatic, and given the time span in between the event and the trial, it was hard to remember.
Hann accepts some points and rejects others. During this line of questioning, Cooper scores some significant points. He catches Hann out on the description of what Jennifer was wearing that night, which he told police was white pajamas with blue flowers as opposed to the black yoga pants she was actually wearing. Cooper suggests the men might have entered the home through the garage, sneaking in after Bich came home, with Hann admitting the door to the house from the garage was never locked. Otherwise, the thieves, Cooper contends, could have climbed up the back of the house and entered into the home via windows on the second floor, another assertion Hann says was technically possible. He also admits that the last thing he heard before the ambulance sped off were Jennifer’s tearful cries asking if he was okay.
Cooper plays an audio recording of Hann telling police that his daughter was “
being held hostage” alongside him and his wife. In the recording, Hann also admits Jennifer appeared “sad” on the night of the murder and that one of the assailants was trying to calm her. Hann acknowledges that all this is true, but referring back to what he told police about Jennifer’s demeanour on that night, he tells Cooper: “My daughter, I love her. How can I say bad things about her?”
However, one thing Cooper can’t seem to escape is that if this was indeed a robbery gone horribly wrong, why was so little money — let alone anything else, including the two high-end cars — actually missing from the house? Hann testifies that when police finally forced him to go back home after six months of avoiding the residence at all costs, he found only three things missing: two rings from his original workplace, Magna, to commemorate fifteen and twenty years at the company, and a camera worth $100.
Cooper does his best to defend his client without upsetting the jurors; however, with six lawyers questioning Hann, more than one juror later expresses displeasure: “I felt bad for him and the situation he was in. They seemed to be twisting what he had said just days after he was shot in the head. But that’s their job: to get the jury to see it their way.”
15
A Brother’s Agony
While Hann’s story is clearly the most heartbreaking, Felix Pan’s journey might be the most harrowing. Up to this point, his twenty-four years can largely be split into two parts — his life prior to the murder, as part of a loving and largely normal family, with a mother, father, and sister, all of whom he cared for deeply; and then his life after the murder, the day he lost his emotional rock, his mother, and his only sibling, Jennifer. His relationship with his father would never be the same either after that day.
After coming home to be with his critically injured father and to bury his mother and grandfather, Felix would have viewed his sister as a victim, showing tenderness, comforting her, and mourning alongside her. So many words of sadness would have been uttered between the two, emotions intertwined. But as the days and weeks went by, he watched as she progressed from victim to suspect and finally, accused murderer, at which point she was removed from his life forever. The next time he sees her, she is sitting in the prisoner’s box in the Newmarket courtroom years later.
The tall, bookish young man appears awkward as he walks into the courtroom, much thinner than he was during his early university days. Throughout the Crown’s questioning he maintains his meek and mild demeanour. Like his sister, he seems childlike yet mature beyond his years. He is reserved and well mannered. Whereas his father did his utmost not to appear weak, Felix appears openly vulnerable, wearing the weight of this traumatic event on his sleeve. His nervousness shines through, and he often peppers his testimony with likes and ums as he attempts to gather his thoughts. When he becomes emotional or frazzled — as questioning turns to his life’s more sensitive moments surrounding his mother, father, and sister — his senses betray him with small coughs and sneezes and a constant need to clear his throat. His proper upbringing and politeness are displayed when, at one point, he apologizes to the court for having to describe how markings from a paintball gun resembled “bird poo.”
It is in regard to his parents’ life insurance policy that Felix draws a clear distinction between himself and his sister. When questioned whether he knew about the money he was in line for if his parents ever met harm, he says he didn’t — that is, until his sister advised him. “After November 8, I asked my sister [about the insurance policies], just because we were dealing with funeral arrangements and things like that,” he says, his voice cracking. “She told me that they did.” When asked if she told him who the beneficiaries were or the amount of money that was involved, he curtly says, “I wasn’t interested in anything more than that.”
Particularly troubling are hearing Felix’s utterances regarding his sister’s graduation from university and how he not only saw the copies of her U of T degree shown in court, but the “original.” He explains to the court how his parents weren’t able to attend the graduation ceremony because there were no tickets and that neither was able to view pictures of the event because Jennifer’s friend flew back to Hong Kong with the photos still in her camera. It’s unclear whether he knows at this point that everything was a grand old charade perpetrated by his sister. Although he doesn’t know many key details about Jennifer’s personal life, when questioned, he is able to recall countless facts about her extensive lies about her educational career, showing just how intricately Jennifer weaved her web of deceit for all those years and how she made sure she explained even the tiniest details to those closest to her. “That’s a photocopy of my sister’s diploma,” Felix tells the court when a copy of her fake degree is shown on a monitor. “I’ve seen it in the house. I’ve also seen the original. My sister [showed it to me] after she graduated. She picked it up from the school. She wanted to frame it. She needed to bring [the photocopy] around for jobs because she didn’t want to bring the original.”
He tells the court about his relationship with Daniel Wong, how Jennifer told him Daniel had an engineering degree, how the pair played paintball together on more than one occasion, hearkening back to Jennifer’s attempts to bring Daniel closer to her family. Again, all this shows the court how the remnants of her lies lived on long after they were uttered. There is clear discomfort in Felix’s voice when he discusses the interaction he had with his sister regarding her relationship with Daniel as it began to disrupt the family peace. “I was angry at my sister because my parents never knew where she was and she [had] to sneak around all the time,” he says, referring to the argument that occurred in the summer of 2010. “They kind of wanted my sister to stop lying about everything. They wanted her to make a decision about whether she wanted to stay with him or stay with the family because of the way she was kind of breaking up the family. There was an argument all the time, and I feel like my parents thought it was a bad influence on her … when everything started, it was kind of like when she started to hide things from my family and go away for long periods of time.”
Felix’s description of his relationship with his mother and father might ring true for many. He explains that his father was his practical support and his mother his emotional. “[In high school and in university my relationship with my dad] was normal. He always wanted me to do well in school. I used to tell him when I had problems in school, sort of thing, and he’d always tell me to ‘keep at it’ and offer to find me a tutor and things like that. [W]ith my mother, I guess I was a little more emotional … so, to him I’d say, ‘I’m not doing that well in this class,’ and to my mother I’d say, ‘I don’t know what I’m doing in this class. I am really stressed out.’ [My mother] was always around. She’s always comforting,” he adds, noting that she treated Jennifer in the same way.
While the Crown questions him, Felix is obliging and co-operative; however, when the defence takes over, his attitude becomes pricklier. And because Jennifer’s lawyer has been informed by his client about Felix and Jennifer’s upbringing, the cross-examination almost develops into a bitter pseudo-sibling rivalry, with neither side wanting to admit they are wrong. Felix can see what Jennifer is trying to do — deflect blame onto their father — in a bid to win back her freedom. But he isn’t going to sit idly by while that happens. Given Jennifer’s defence — which involves her admitting to a plot to kill her father only, due to his treatment of her — it is clear that Cooper is trying to draw a distinction between Hann and Bich’s parenting styles. When Cooper suggests that Hann was harder on Jennifer than he was on her brother, Felix takes issue with that — even though the testimony seemed to show that Hann was indeed harder on Jennifer than Felix.
Cooper raises the prospect that Bich was the ideal parent — comforting, loving, non-judgmental, and protective. When it comes to Felix’s father, the defence attorney suggests Hann was often “uncompromising and controlling.” But Felix battles back, explaining that his mother was also very deman
ding and did her share of yelling at Jennifer when she misbehaved. “What happens is when there’s a family drama and my dad and my sister are really at it,” Felix says, “my mom’s angry with my dad for the way he’s yelling at my sister, but my mom would still be angry at my sister.”
When asked by Cooper if he confided in his mother because he could do so without fear of reprisal — unlike with his father — Felix says this wasn’t the case; rather, he was just more comfortable opening up emotionally to women. “It’s more like I didn’t have that connection with my dad. I’ve always been good at talking about my feelings with girls more than guys in general,” he admits. He further rejects the assertion that his mother would “accept him” as he was, unlike his father: “[My mother] also often pushed me to do well, but in a different kind of way.” He also denies Cooper’s suggestion that it was his mother who protected Jennifer from her dad, stating that often the roles were reversed. “They would both yell at her depending on the situation.”
When Cooper suggests Hann was overly conscious of what those around him thought and was intent on his children growing up around the family’s traditional culture, Felix corrects him and says it was actually Bich who was more concerned with keeping the children steeped in their Asian background.
Although Felix appears to be the more broken of the two Pan men, Cooper certainly has more leeway when questioning him than he had with Hann. After all, he is a young man, born and raised in Canada, who wasn’t physically injured or even present for the attack. He can handle himself.
When speaking about the ultimatum offered to Jennifer, Felix rejects Cooper’s suggestion that it was her father rather than his mother who wanted Jennifer to be home. He also dismisses the prevailing wisdom that it was Hann who was the hardest on Jennifer during the fight and says that it was his mother who offered her the ultimatum. “They actually both wanted her to be home,” he tells Cooper. “They gave her the choice of either stay home or don’t come home. This is when my mother was really upset and screaming at her. This was a bad time in the family. Everyone kind of kept to themselves after this. Whenever we would talk we’d be arguing about something. [We kept it] in the family.”
A Daughter's Deadly Deception Page 14
