What happened to missing evidence in the Byron Carr murder case? Charlottetown's interim police chief explains

We have more reaction now to this week's stunning turn of events in the Byron Carr murder case. All charges against Todd Joseph Irving were withdrawn after the Crown Attorney's Office said crucial evidence could not be found. It means there was no longer a reasonable likelihood of conviction. Interim Police Chief Darren McDougal joins us tonight with more. Thanks so much for coming in. Really appreciate it. I appreciate you having me here, Louise. So many questions, as you can imagine, that people have about this latest development. in the case of the missing evidence or exhibits. When did it go missing and how? Do you have any knowledge of that? So as it relates to those exhibits, the investigators reopened the case, I'll say, and there was new investigators that took that responsibility on in 2007. At that time, they reviewed the case, they reviewed the evidence and other things that were important to the case. And what they endeavored to do at that time was look at advancements in DNA and other investigative methods that they could use to help advance it. What was identified was that exhibits that were delivered to the lab in 1988, when the offense occurred on or about that time, and they were packaged properly and delivered to the crime lab for analysis, that analysis was done. and the the biological material that would have been contained let's say on some of those exhibits was processed and stored at the lab for safekeeping or whatnot that then became let's say the evidence okay those exhibits according to the lab reports were returned to Charlottetown police in 1989 so once everything was processed they would then have been returned in 2007 when the investigators reopened the case, they were unable to find the exhibits that were returned to Charlottetown. They relied on the reports from the lab that they were. So the evidence from those exhibits was preserved at the lab. So the investigators at that time decided to proceed in the absence of certain exhibits, but the evidence from those exhibits or the biological material that ultimately formed a DNA profile of what we believe was the offender, was housed at the lab and housed properly. So the objects were missing. The evidence collected from those objects were still intact to this date. Correct. Was there any DNA evidence on those missing objects that was collected? Yes. Yes. Yes. you and the former chief Brad McConnell have stated you hoped or believed that DNA evidence would be enough to overcome uh the challenge of the lost objects the lost exhibits correct but of course police do not prosecute cases so how is it that the crown was not aware when the individual was arrested in 2024 that those missing objects were missing yeah that's And I will say this. Looking back now on what's happened in the last couple of years, there was likely not enough transparency with regard to the evidence as it relates to the Crown and the investigators. So there was certainly a breakdown there. I think that the investigators clung to the hope that they would be able to interview some of the people involved in 1989, 1988, to determine where they might have put these exhibits. At that time, were exhibits that were processed at the lab just more or less discarded to some degree? You know, these were the things appreciating that 1988, the standards that were relied upon for evidence management were far different than they are now and far different than they were in 2007. But whose job is it for that disclosure to take place? Is it the police telling the Crown, listen, we can't find these objects? Or should the Crown have asked the police to see all the evidence in the exhibits? So it's the responsibility of the police to, for full disclosure, to move that disclosure to the Crown. That would include all exhibits that they saw fit. Now, generally speaking, you're not moving an exhibit to the Crown, you're moving it to the court. Right. So it'll be, that's when it would be displayed or whatnot. But you would be giving the Crown a list of exhibits that would be relevant to the trial, per se, in this case. So that did not, that didn't happen then? It happened. What happened was the Crown was notified that after interviews with employees that were working at the time and searching and searching and searching through boxes and trying to find various exhibits, that it was a dead end. Okay. So they were only told very shortly before the trial. I think that, Louise, I think that there might have been, there might have been, I will say this, this was missing or that was missing, but not the full picture of what was missing, I would say, would be what I understand have happened in that breakdown. So then how do you explain to islanders that a substantial amount of taxpayer money was spent on this, that it wouldn't have gone to trial had the Crown known years ago that these key exhibits were actually not there? I think that what I would say is the weight of the DNA evidence, the forensic DNA evidence, that we put that weight, perhaps, on that evidence, whereas the Crown, who views this through a different lens, the weight that existed with the missing exhibits, measured with the weight of the DNA evidence and the forensic DNA evidence, that was very compelling, I would say. They, again, viewing it through a different lens, they came to the conclusion that they were unable to provide the accused with a fair trial. But they could have known that years ago. Yeah, they could have. Should they have? Were mistakes made? Were the investigators, were they just invested in the case, invested in focusing on moving the DNA evidence and other things and invested in interviewing people still and moving the case and overlooked some things that were important. But at the end of the day, they also were always mindful that the evidence in the form of biological material was collected from items or exhibits that they couldn't find. And so the weight of that evidence that had already been collected from the exhibit versus the exhibit being available itself. These are the things that the investigators were balancing, I would say. How worried are you about other evidence that potentially has gone missing over the years and if any other cases could be in jeopardy? I mean, if you look back over the last, since we moved from 1999 to our new location, we've had some big, big files, big investigations. We had a clean sweep. We arrested 36 people in one day for drug trafficking. The volume of evidence in that case, it was staggering. Murder investigations. Regularly, we have drug investigations. Evidence being lost has not happened. Our evidence management systems that we have in place are to the national standard, for sure. And the education of the officer in regards to handling evidence, chain of custody, those things, it's evolved over the years. And we're where we should be. I welcome, though, any review or any oversight or whatnot in regards to better practices, best practices, those types of things. We welcome that. How do you regain public trust going forward? Well, I think, Louise, yeah, it's a good question. And we just have to do our job the right way. We have to display to the public that that's what we're doing. You know, again, oversight, a review of our evidence management system. I'm welcome to that. You know, to give the public reassurance, to regain the trust of the public, a review of all that, I welcome it. And I have absolutely no issues with that happening and I hope that it does. Interim Chief McDougall, I appreciate you joining us tonight. Thank you very much. Well, thank you very much, Louise.