Second guessing, regrets and some amends. And for Umar Zameer, none of it can be enough.
In the wake of Sunday’s not guilty verdict that cleared Zameer in the 2021 death of Toronto Const. Jeffrey Northrup, we’ve seen the police chief and politicians walk back and make excuses for remarks that were reckless, incendiary and irresponsible.
Premier Doug Ford on Wednesday offered the lame excuse that he only had “limited information” when he angrily condemned the court decision to release Zameer on bail. Working on an incomplete set of facts is precisely the reason why a politician should not comment on such a sensitive matter. But not Ford, who at the time denounced the decision to release Zameer as “completely unacceptable.” The justice system, he said, needs to put victims ahead of “criminals.”
At least former Toronto Mayor John Tory had the good grace this week to accept there were lessons to be learned. Reacting to Zameer’s release on bail, he had tweeted, “It is almost impossible to imagine a circumstance in which an accused in a case of first-degree murder would be granted bail.”
This week, he acknowledged that, “one should wait.” Yes, indeed.
Meanwhile, Chief Myron Demkiw on Tuesday walked back his inappropriate reaction to Sunday’s jury decision when he stated, “We were hoping for a different outcome.”
“Let me be crystal clear: I support and accept the verdict,” Demkiw told reporters Tuesday. That’s the statement he should have made Sunday. But his first reaction to the verdict was telling and disturbing.
He offered no opinion on the intemperate comments offered up by interim chief James Ramer immediately after Northrup’s death that it had been “intentional” and “deliberate,” remarks that were prejudicial and no doubt contributed to the political reactions when Zameer was freed on bail.
Together, such heated rhetoric showed a carelessness and a callousness towards Zameer and a disrespect of the judicial process.
But still troubling questions remain.
Three police witnesses testified under oath that Northrup was standing in front of Zameer’s BMW when he was run over, testimony that was contradicted by other evidence, including a police reconstructionist. Defence lawyer Nader Hasan accused the officers of colluding and lying to present matching accounts of what had transpired.
Now the Toronto police have asked the Ontario Provincial Police for an independent review of that testimony. That review should be released publicly. If there is evidence of perjury, the officers should face professional and criminal consequences.
Other troubling questions remain around the prosecution of Zameer on a first-degree murder charge for Northrup’s death, who died when he was struck by a car driven by Zameer in an underground parking lot.
Northrup’s death was a terrible tragedy. His police colleagues and his widow have all spoken movingly about his loss. Yet the public political and police reactions speak to behind-the-scene forces that may have propelled this prosecution forward, even when the evidence cast increasing doubt whether a conviction was likely. Zameer testified that when two plainclothes officers rushed toward the family car, he feared they were being attacked and had no idea those individual were police officers, an account that was accepted by jurors in their decision to acquit.
“They put this guy through Hell on no evidence . . . It was tactically, ethically, legally and judgmentally ridiculous,” John Struthers, a former president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, told the Star’s Jacques Gallant.
As we wrote earlier this week, judges were waving red flags about the prosecution’s case. The Crown’s argument that Zameer deliberately ran down Northrup “runs contrary to logic and common sense,” Justice Jill Copeland wrote when she released him on bail.
