Murder victim’s family crushed by prospect of a third trial
Loved ones in limbo until Crown decides whether to reopen case
Simeon Peter’s family believes he held on long enough to hear his mother’s voice in the hospital before he succumbed to injuries sustained in an execution-style shooting.
“As soon as I entered and I held his hand and I called his name, that’s the time the doctors . . . , ” said his mother, Marcelina Peter, her voice trailing off as she was overcome with emotion.
The Peter family has lived through an ordeal that most could not fathom — not just those who have never lost a loved one to a murder, but even those who have.
Because unlike most murder cases, which lead to one trial and some form of justice being delivered, the Peters have had to sit in court and watch as the man accused of killing their son and brother stood trial once, then a second time. Now there may be a third trial.
The Crown has always alleged that Warren Nigel Abbey was a member of the Malvern Crew who mistakenly believed Peter, 19, was a member of the rival Galloway Boys when he shot him multiple times on a Scarborough street in 2004 as Peter was making his way to a job interview.
Abbey was acquitted at his first trial in 2007, but the Crown appealed, leading to a conviction at the second trial in 2011and a sentence of life in prison. “The cold and callous nature of this killing cannot be overstated,” Superior Court Justice David McCombs said during the sentencing.
But Abbey’s lawyers appealed, and this month, Ontario’s top court ordered a third trial, finding that the key part of the Crown’s evidence, an expert witness who testified on the significance of gang members with teardrop tattoos, contained “inaccuracies” and even “falsehoods.”
The Crown had alleged Abbey got a teardrop tattooed under his right eye about four months after Peter’s death.
Sociologist Mark Totten testified for the Crown at the second trial that the teardrop could have one of three meanings: the individual had lost a loved one or fellow gang member, had spent time in prison or had killed a rival gang member.
“I have concluded that the fresh evidence shows Totten’s opinion evidence on the meaning of a teardrop tattoo to be too unreliable to be heard by a jury. If the trial judge had known about the fresh evidence he would have ruled Totten’s evidence inadmissible,” Court of Appeal Justice John Laskin wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel this month.
It’s now up to the Crown to decide if it will pursue a third trial; the Ministry of the Attorney General has not commented publicly on the case because it has until early September to decide if it wants to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Abbey’s lawyers say they will be applying for his release from prison pending a possible retrial.
In an interview with the Star, Peter’s parents and two of his three sisters said the teardrop issue has overshadowed everything else about the case, and lost in the discussion is a devoted son and brother, who went by the nickname Sammy, and who was looking to get a job that day in 2004 so that he could save up and open his own clothing line.
“We want more information out there about our brother, who is never spoken about,” said his sister, Rinita. “Nobody actually knows my brother, anything about him. The whole thing is on Abbey.”
Worse, the initial reports of Peter’s shooting had relatives, including in Dubai from where the Peter family emigrated, calling to inquire if he had indeed been involved with a gang. Media coverage containing a mug shot of Peter from a run-in with police didn’t help, his family said.
“He would say to my relatives, he said once I start working, Momma can stay home,” Marcelina said. “I didn’t work in Dubai, so when I came here, I started working, that was his only concern, once I get a job, Momma doesn’t have to work.
“He was really, really loving and he cared a lot about me and my girls and my husband. I only wish I can get him back, but I cannot.”
Referring to their parents, younger sister Stephanie said: “He knew how much they had sacrificed, and the opportunities they had given us, and he wanted to give back.”
Peter’s father, John, who remained quiet during much of the interview, admitted that following his only son’s death, he briefly had second thoughts about the decision to come to Canada in the1990s. He worked as a supervisor for the aviation department in Dubai; in Toronto, he did lower wage jobs, and is now retired.
“I asked them: Did I make the wrong decision?” John said, pausing as he began to tear up.
Peter now has nieces and nephews he’s never met. Rinita has two children, as does Peter’s other sister, Rachel. The family said they never glossed over what happened when explaining the killing to the children, and through them, they’ve been able to keep Uncle Sammy’s name alive.
Following his death, the sisters made a promise that part of his name would live on in their kids’ names when they were born some day, which is why both Rachel’s and Rinita’s sons have the middle name “Ralph,” the same as their brother’s.
Rinita said the sisters have kept their last name so that it would also live on after Simeon’s death.
“Every time I accomplish something, I think, ‘I hope you’re watching me, I hope you’d be proud’” Stephanie said through tears.
The Peter family believes Abbey is guilty of Peter’s murder and continues to have many questions about what happened that day. They’re also concerned about the effect the passage of time has had on the remaining evidence in the case.
Aside from Totten’s evidence, which is no longer admissible, the Crown had also called three Malvern Crew members whose testimony implicated Abbey, though the Court of Appeal said this month they had “unsavory” pasts and testified in exchange for immunity on serious offences.
“They say if Dr. Totten wasn’t al- lowed to give his testimony that maybe that would have affected the guilty verdict,” Stephanie said. “I find that hard to believe that the jury came to the guilty verdict solely on Dr. Totten’s evidence. I find that truly ridiculous to believe.”
The family is now once again preparing for the possibility of a third trial in Peter’s murder, and all the logistics that come with it, including trying to take time off work to attend the trial, making child-care arrangements, and having their lives at a standstill while the jury deliberates.
Marcelina wishes she could have gotten answers from her son, but that chance in the hospital never came.
“If he could have just opened his eyes and looked at us and said okay mom, this is what happened, I would have said okay, at least he had a chance to speak to us.”