Thunder Bay City's True Murder Investigations 1882 to 2017

By Kim Casey

The city of Thunder Bay has received a lot of negative attention lately, due to its high number of homicides. Even more troubling is the fact that this isn't an isolated incident. There have been many years throughout Thunder Bay's troubled history, where there's been an excessive amount of senseless deaths at the hands of murderous people. This book, the first of its kind, looks into the investigations that resulted in murder, manslaughter and infanticide charges from 1882 to 2017, in the area now known as Thunder Bay City.

• Language: English
• Publisher: BookBaby
• Release date: Mar 12, 2018
• ISBN: 9781543928013

Book preview

156.

CHAPTER 1 – THE FIRST TRAGEDY

Port Arthur was originally called The Station. In 1870, it became known as Prince Arthur’s Landing. Twelve years later, at the beginning of November, William Winfield arrived in the area. Originally from Elora, Ontario, the young man was working for the Canadian Pacific Railway. On December 16, William and his co-workers Burns and Peter Forbes (alias Fox), had a few drinks at the camp where they all boarded. In need of an axe, they set out for Prince Arthur’s Landing.1 Chilled by the three-mile walk, the trio went to Mrs. Roy’s brothel and resumed drinking.

In no rush to get back to their camp, the men took off their boots and made themselves at home for a few hours.2 They ate supper, but refused to reimburse the proprietor for the meal. As the night progressed, Mrs. Roy and her granddaughter, Lizzie (Elizabeth) Washington began drinking with the men. John Reid dropped by with a dog, and William took ownership of the pet. He then gave it to one of Mrs. Roy’s children. When Reid left the brothel, the dog followed him and William became upset with Lizzie. There are two versions as to how the angry young man ended up with a bullet in his chest.

According to Peter Forbes, he was lying down when Lizzie and William resumed arguing over the dog. Mrs. Roy told the trio to go or she would send for the police. Peter got to his feet and was asking William to leave, when he seen Lizzie holding a revolver. Peter told her not to shoot, but she pulled the trigger. He never seen the deceased hit the 17-year-old or do anything to provoke her into such a cold-hearted act.3

    According to Mrs. Roy and her three children, William was verbally abusing Lizzie, when Peter tried to get him to leave the brothel. The deceased refused to go and knocked his friend to the ground. Lizzie was heading for the door to get the police, when William hit her head and she fell against the wall. He then struck Mrs. Roy twice and made advances at Nettie Washington. By this time, Lizzie had recovered from the assault and fearing the deceased would continue his abuses, she shot him with a revolver.4

When the constable arrived, he found William’s corpse on the kitchen floor and Lizzie sitting on the edge of her bed. He told her she was under arrest and he was taking her to jail. She appeared to take the matter as coolly as possible, and did not seem to think that she had done anything very much out of the way—that she was justified in the act.5 The jurors at the coroner’s inquest concluded Lizzie was responsible for William’s death. They weren’t sure if it was an act of self-defense, and left it to the higher court to determine.

    Lizzie was charged with murder, which meant if she were found guilty, she would be sent to the gallows. Her trial was to be held in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. On May 26, 1883, The Thunder Bay Sentinel published an article that strongly opposed this decision for three primary reasons. First, Prince Arthur’s Landing was more than capable of handling its own judicial affairs. Second, it would involve sending 12 witnesses, the constable and turnkey, over 300 miles away. Where their expenses would have to be covered by the province and the municipality. Third, the accused had been in jail since her arrest, and she deserved a prompt resolution in her own community.6

On June 20, 1883, Lizzie’s trial began at Prince Arthur’s Landing and her charge was dropped to manslaughter. The Honorable Walter McCrea was the judge and he was assisted by Robert Laird, Esq., Stipendiary Magistrate and Thos. Marks, Esq. J. P. The accused was represented by Edward Robert Cameron and T. A. Keefer. They’d just started a law practice in Prince Arthur’s Landing.7 John Macpherson Hamilton was to serve as the Crown attorney. When Lizzie was brought out to make her plea, the small courtroom was crammed with local citizens.

The unhappy girl was looking in good bodily health as she appeared in the dock.  She was neatly but modestly attired, and exhibited a good deal of anxiety as to the proceedings in court. She did not look like a murderess, and the opinion of everyone was that such a girl could never be induced to fire a fatal shot at anyone except under circumstances of extreme provocation.8

Mr. Cameron asserted that even though his client wasn’t guilty, she shouldn’t have to give a plea because of the unsettled boundary issues affecting their community. On the second day of the trial, he explained that Prince Arthur’s Landing wasn’t within the Province of Ontario. It was still part of Indian Territory, which had never been ceded by the British Government to the Dominion, nor was it included in the lands purchased by the merchants and adventurers of England trading into the Hudson’s Bay.9 The judged sided with the Crown attorney’s argument that Prince Arthur’s Landing was part of Ontario’s western boundary, and the court was well within its legal right to oversee Lizzie’s trial.

Cameron explained that his motive in bringing up the boundary issue wasn’t to delay the proceedings or to be petty. He did it because it was his job to present any point that could possibly benefit his client’s defense. When it came to Lizzie’s plea, he stated that she wasn’t guilty of manslaughter because her actions were justified. It was clear from the relatives’ evidence that Lizzie used the revolver because she had a legitimate fear of further assaults from the deceased. He explained this on the ground that the merciful spirit of our laws recognizes the frailty of human nature and that man is so constituted that under strong provocation, and carried away by the passions of the moment, he commits acts of which he would be incapable under ordinary circumstances.10

The Crown attorney pointed out that Peter’s version of events was more accurate, because he had nothing to gain by lying. Whereas Mrs. Roy and her children were related to the accused, and they lived in a house where criminal activities took place, including the illegal sale of alcohol. Hamilton stated that they were not entitled to the same kind of gentle treatment which the families of other people should expect.11 According to a newspaper article in The Sentinel, the judge’s final instructions to the grand jurors was thorough. He left it to the jury to decide the facts, but his charge was manifestly against the prisoner and rather hard on her side of the case.12 The Weekly Herald and Lake Superior Mining Journal, reported that the judge’s directions were impartial.

    It took the jury about 90 minutes, to come back with a guilty verdict and a recommendation for mercy. When asked if there was any reason why her sentence shouldn’t be passed, Lizzie declared her innocence. Judge McCrea indicated he supported the jurors’ verdict and explained that if they hadn’t recommended leniency, he would have given her more than five years. Upon hearing the sentence the wretched girl uttered a cry of anguish and fell back in a swoon.13 The chief constable had to help her out of the courtroom.

    On July 3, 1883, Lizzie arrived at the Kingston Penitentiary. She was listed as being 18-years-old, five-foot-three, Negro, labourer, literate, abstainer and Methodist.14 In the punishment record book, it indicated that she’d committed the serious offence of passing letters to a male convict. Her punishment was a week in solitary confinement and all the remission days that she’d earned were taken away. Remission was a complicated system where inmates could get time off for good conduct and productivity. She was discharged on June 20, 1887.

    The male convict was Howard McMillan, and he arrived at the penitentiary on November 20, 1884. His crime rape, the 26-year-old had been given seven years. Howard was from the Thunder Bay District and he was listed as being six feet, fresh complexion, blue eyes, grey hair, labourer, literate, temperate, Catholic and born in Quebec. He received no punishment for communicating with Lizzie, because the warden was of the opinion that she’d initiated the letters. The Minister of Justice granted Howard a pardon on June 15, 1886.15

ENDNOTES

1 The Weekly Herald, 20 December, 1882.

2    Ibid.

3    Ibid.

4    The Sentinel, 23 June 1883.

5    The Weekly Herald, 20 December, 1882.

6 The Thunder Bay Sentinel, 26 May, 1883.

7 The Sentinel, 23 June 1883.

8    Ibid.

9    Ibid.

10  Ibid.

11  Ibid.

12  Ibid.

13  Ibid.

14  The Prisoner’s Record – Kingston Penitentiary 1843 – 1890.

15  Ibid.

CHAPTER 2 – THE GRAMOPHONE

In 1884, Prince Arthur’s Landing became Port Arthur. The newly incorporated town was touted as being the place where people could make quick fortunes on the surrounding timber, wildlife and minerals. In whatever direction one may turn, opportunities for profitable enterprises seem abundant in this great north land, which require only energy and intelligence to develop.1 Charles Donati was born in Rivato, Italy and in 1897, at the age of 24, he settled in Port Arthur. Four years later, he married 15-year-old Pepina Josephine Arquette.

    Charles first worked as a contractor, and in 1903, he opened a confectionary on South Water Street. Assisted by his wife and teenaged sister-in-law, they sold fruit, tobacco, cigars, peanuts, pop and groceries. The back and right side of the building contained their bedroom, living room and kitchen. The confectionary was on the left side, where customers would often sit around the stove and socialize. On the counter next to the till, was a gramophone and one spring evening, its inviting music caught the attention of some men passing by the building. Minutes later, one of them would lose their life and Charles Donati would be arrested for murder. 

The victim was a fireman for the Canadian Pacific Railway, and resided at the Manitoba Hotel in the neighbouring city of Fort William. The Daily Times-Journal reported that John F. Mein was highly respected by his peers. He never used foul language or got into fights, and had managed to save $2,000 in the short time that he’d resided in the area. It is regarded as almost incredible that a young man of such exemplary character could have got into a fracas of this kind and lost his life through any fault of his own.2

The inquest began on March 21, 1904, at the courthouse. The court room [sic] was crowded to suffocation and the corridor leading to it was so jammed that it was next to impossible to gain admittance.3 Charles hired barrister F. H. Keefer, and A. McComber represented the Crown. The first witness was John Byers, a carpenter. He testified that on March 18, he was installing flooring in the confectionary’s kitchen. A gramophone played throughout the day, and in the afternoon Pepina was looking for her husband. Byers told her that he’d seen Charles go out the backdoor. The excited woman immediately called her husband in, but the carpenter didn’t know what was said between the couple.

    Around 6:00 p.m., Byers seen John Mein and Harry Loney at the counter talking with Pepina. One of the men called her a liar. She replied, ‘You are not much of a gentleman to call any woman a liar.’4 Her husband and three other men were sitting around the stove. Charles got up and walked towards Mein. He put his hand on the man’s shoulder and stated in a nonthreatening tone, ‘Do you know who is here?’5 Mein answered, ‘I don’t give a dam who is here,’ and hit him.6 Byers didn’t think that Charles had been argumentative.

    The carpenter didn’t know what took place next, because he was busying putting his tools away. When he looked back into the confectionary, Charles and the three men that were seated around the stove, were pushing Mein and Loney out the door. Mein was trying to get back into the confectionary when the carpenter heard glass breaking, then two gunshots, one right after the other. Mein stepped back from the front door. Pepina was crying at the counter and her husband disappeared out the backdoor. Byers could smell gunpowder. A juror asked the carpenter if he thought the accused had grounds to shoot, he answered no.7

    The next witness was Harry Loney, he worked as a fireman for the railway. He testified that earlier in the afternoon, he’d met up with William Pinner and Mein on the streetcar heading for Port Arthur. They all got off on Cumberland Street, where it intersected with Arthur Street. The men went to a couple of drinking establishments, where Mr. Campbell and Alfred Reid joined them. The Ottawa their next stop, it was at the Mining Exchange that a resident from Fort William became part of the barhopping group. Loney, Mr. Campbell and Reid went on to the Northern Hotel and the rest of the men went to Donati’s Confectionary, where a gramophone was playing.

Loney indicated that several minutes later, the men that’d gone to the confectionary arrived at the Northern Hotel. They claimed a woman with a revolver had ‘chased’ them out and they didn’t know why.8 He testified that they weren’t drunk or ‘quarrelsome’.9 Mein was the only one that couldn’t let it go, and when the men went on to the Pacific Hotel, he asked Loney to go back to the confectionary. His reasoning being, that he wanted to find out why the woman had behaved in such an offensive manner. Loney didn’t know if Mein had consumed alcohol at the last two hotels.

Loney agreed to go back, and when he and Mein entered the confectionary, there was three or four men seated around the stove. Mr. McComber asked him if Charles was one of them. Loney answered ‘I don’t know, I could not tell them apart.’10 A woman was at the counter, and Mein asked her for 10 cents worth of apples. While she was getting them, he asked her why she’d pulled out the revolver. Loney testified that he couldn’t understand the woman’s reply, because she spoke Italian. It was at this point, that the seated men jumped up and approached Mein. One of the men raised his hand in a ‘threatening manner.’11 Loney didn’t know who the man was but fearing he was going to attack his friend, Loney hit the man’s head.

A brawl broke out between Loney, Mein and the other men. Loney lost his balance and fell towards the front window. He quickly got to his feet and made a dash for the door. Loney was on the sidewalk, when Mein was pushed out of the confectionary. Standing a foot from the door, Mein’s last words were ‘the daresn’t not shoot him.’12 His arms raised, a bullet burst through door’s window. Mein sped around the corner and collapsed.

    When Loney was questioned by the accused’s attorney, he described the victim as being a ‘nice’ person and that they were good friends.13 Mein wasn’t one to consume alcohol and this was the first time that he’d gone drinking. Loney testified that none of the men that he’d been with on the day of the shooting were drunk. He never seen the victim toss a pop bottle at Pepina. Nor did he hear him curse or make threats. Loney wouldn’t swear that one of the men that was seated around the stove, had told Mein he couldn’t re-enter the confectionary. He explained that when the victim had been forced out of the premises, he’d asked for his hat. Mein never kicked the door or broke any of the windowpanes. Upon further questioning, he said it was possible that his friend could have broken the glass. Loney claimed that he’d been hit on the forehead with a fist, and knifed in the abdomen.14

James McClarty, manager of the Northern Hotel was the next to testify. He stated that six or seven men came to his establishment around 5:00 p.m. The manager was standing on the verandah, when he heard one of them say, ‘Let us go back and see why she pulled the revolver.’15 Some of the men answered that they would rather get a drink. As the group was heading into the hotel, someone stated that they should get the woman arrested. This suggestion was also rejected by the rest of the men as they made their way into the barroom. Their rowdy behavior concerning McClarty, he left the verandah to see what they were doing inside the hotel.

The manager explained that the group stayed at the bar about four minutes. On their way out, one or two suggested that they go back. Another man gave a speech at the top of the verandah. He said, ‘I now appear in front of you because I cant [sic] appear back of you.’16 McClarty didn’t know anyone in the group and couldn’t identify who made the various comments. When the manager was asked if he thought the group was drunk, he initially said he didn’t know. Upon further questioning, McClarty clarified that they were ‘joking and laughing, and dancing.’17 When he was asked if they could take ‘care of themselves,’ he was quick to say no.18

    John Downey took the stand, and explained that he was heading into the reading room of the Mining Exchange, when he seen Mein and Loney in front of the confectionary. They were standing at the window and talking to the people inside. Mein was gesturing for them to come outside. Downey couldn’t make out what they were saying, but was under the impression that the two men were quarrelling with the people inside the confectionary. Mein, who was wearing a hat, rushed at the door and Downey heard glass breaking. The victim stepped back, and then came the sound of a gunshot. Loney was on the sidewalk. Downey walked to the confectionary, and saw two bullet holes in the glass. He headed to where Mein had collapsed on the ground, but couldn’t see much because of the crowd that had gathered around the victim. Downey walked back to the confectionary and heard people talking inside.19

James Wildman testified that he was at the Mining Exchange, when he heard a gunshot. A young girl came running into the hotel excitedly announcing that there’d been a shooting. Wildman rushed outside, and seen Mein lying face down on the sidewalk. He was in the process of turning the man onto his back, when Doctor Carder arrived and stated, ‘let him down he is gone.’20

Joseph Bosquet operated a restaurant at the corner of Park Street and South Water Street. It was next to the Donati Confectionary. Bosquet explained that due to the thin wall between his restaurant and the confectionary, he could hear everything that went on next door. The restaurant owner was in his sitting room reading, when he heard a gunshot. Then a sobbing woman running from the confectionary to the bedroom. A few seconds later, there was a second shot. When Bosquet looked outside, he saw a man run around the corner and fall. Prior to the shooting, the restaurant owner never heard quarreling or glass breaking.21

    Joseph Derose was the next to testify. He stated that he was Italian and lived on the hill. He knew Charles for about a year, and they were friends. Around 5:45 p.m., Derose, Frank Saghana and John Berrard went to the confectionary to buy cigars. They were seated by the stove, when Mein and Loney walked into the building. Pepina was behind the counter with her sister, and Mein asked her for 10 cents worth of apples. The next thing Derose heard was the victim calling Pepina a ‘big liar.’22 Charles got to his feet and declared, ‘see who you are talking to.’23 Mein answered, ‘I dont [sic] give a God dam [sic] who I talk to.’24 The accused told the victim to leave. Mein’s response was to hit Charles in the face with his hand. Loney struck the accused’s back.

Derose stood up and began pushing Mein towards the door. The victim grabbed a pop bottle from the window and threw it at Pepina. She was standing behind the counter, and the bottle hit the wall. He said ‘You Whore, you son of a bitch, if I get in there I will kick your ass!’25 Charles ejected Loney from the confectionary. Derose shoved Mein outside, and shut the door. The victim tried to get back inside, and at one point wedged his knee in the door. Derose forced Mein back out and held the door closed. Charles told the victim three or four times to leave. Mein hit the door twice with his fist, and the falling class cut Derose’s hand.

Derose testified that Mein pushed on the door for five to ten minutes. He informed the victim that he had the strength to keep the door closed. Mein answered that he didn’t.26 In a frightened voice, Charles told the victim to leave. A gun was fired twice from within the confectionary. Derose didn’t see who’d done the shooting, because he was busy holding the door closed. Mein was backing away from the door, when the shots were fired. Derose turned around and seen Charles. The accused had nothing in his hands. Derose didn’t observe anyone holding a knife or a revolver. Nor did he see Loney trying to get back into the confectionary. Derose indicated that he wasn’t scared, but Charles appeared fearful of Mein and Loney.27

An interpreter was provided for Frank Saghana, but it quickly became evident that he knew English well enough, to speak for himself. His account of what transpired was very similar to the previous witness’ testimony. Saghana, Derose and Berrard came to the store just before 6:00 p.m., and were seated around the stove when Mein and Loney appeared. Saghana didn’t hear either man ask for apples. He did hear Mein call Pepina a liar. Her response was, ‘you are not much of a gentleman to call me a liar.’28 It was at this point that the accused got up and reminded the victim that he was talking to a woman. Mein answered, ‘I don’t give a God damn [sic] who I am talking to.’29 The victim struck the accused in the face. Charles retaliated and hit Mein. Loney joined in and assaulted the accused’s back.

Saghana observed Derose getting up from the stove, and a fight ensuing between the four men. Loney was knocked to the floor by Derose, and after he got up, he exited the confectionary. The only time Saghana saw someone holding something in their hand, was when Charles shoved Mein out the door. The victim snatched up a pop bottle and tossed it at Pepina. She was screaming, and appeared frightened. Pepina’s sister was there, and she was also upset.

Saghana stated that after the two men had been forced outside, Derose held the door shut. Mein kicked the door three or four times, and managed to push it open. Derose reclosed it, and told the intruder on two occasions to leave. Saghana saw Mein hit the glass twice and heard it break. Then came the sound of two gunshots. He didn’t know who fired the revolver, because he was looking at the floor. Saghana didn’t hear the accused tell the two men to leave. He did hear Mein threaten Pepina. ‘He said if I get in I will smash your face.’30

    Dr. Carder testified that when he went to assist the victim on the sidewalk, he didn’t have long to live. The physician conducted the post-mortem examination and concluded the cause of death was due to a bullet puncturing the aorta. There was a wound in the left chest, and following up the wound by dissection the course of the bullet was traced through the lung and through the aorta, the main artery from the heart.  The ball was found lying on the diaphragm near the angle of the sixth rib at the back.31 He found two minor wounds to the right wrist. Dr. Carder stated that he didn’t think that they were caused by glass, because they were puncture wounds.32 But it was reported in the newspaper that the doctor thought that they may have been caused by jagged glass.33

John Berrard required an interpreter. He’d lived in the area six years, and had known Charles for six months. He indicated that the victim had called Pepina a liar, and a fight broke out between Mein, Loney, Derose and Charles. Berrard didn’t see anyone toss a pop bottle. After Loney and Mein were outside, he saw Mein hit the windowpane with his fist. Berrard heard the victim call Pepina vulgar names and he threatened to physically harm her. He also heard two shots, but wasn’t sure who’d fired the revolver. At the time of the shooting, Charles was at the stove and Berrard was behind him. The shots came from behind the accused. Pepina was at the counter the entire time, and Berrard never seen the accused get a revolver or raise his arms.34

    William Pinner was the next to testify. Also employed as a fireman for the railway, he resided in Fort William. On the day of the shooting, he and Mein took the streetcar to Port Arthur. They went to several hotels, where they were joined by five other men. It was Pinner’s idea to get peanuts. He along with Mein and Young went to the confectionary around 5:00 p.m. Pepina was behind the counter, and Pinner asked her for peanuts and ale. He testified that she seemed ‘highly excited, and aggravated and ordered us out immediately.’35 Pinner and his two friends were taken aback by her abrupt behaviour, and asked her what was wrong. Offering no explanation, Pepina went into the bedroom and returned with a revolver. She again told the men to leave.

Pinner stated that the trio immediately exited the confectionary and rejoined the other men at the Northern Hotel. He couldn’t recall anyone saying that they should go back. All the men went to the Pacific Hotel, and this was when Mein asked him to return to the confectionary and confront the young woman about the revolver. Pinner wanted no part of it, and told the victim to forget about the incident. He later testified that he wouldn’t swear ale had been requested.36

    Pinner didn’t see anyone else in the confectionary. He never heard Pepina call for her husband. Pinner claimed that no one had played with the lumber or touched the pickles. Nor did anyone swear at Pepina or follow her into the bedroom. Pinner wasn’t sure if the young woman was wearing a jacket. When he was asked if Mein behaved properly, he stated, ‘I couldn’t say.’37 Pinner explained that the trio’s intention wasn’t to have fun at Pepina’s expense. They were merely ‘joking’ but he wouldn’t elaborate on the source of their amusement.38 Pinner stated that he’d had some drinks at the different hotels, but he wasn’t drunk.

  William Young testified that he resided in Fort William and worked as a labourer. On the day of the shooting, he met Mein on the streetcar. When they arrived in Port Arthur, Mr. Campbell, Loney and himself went off on their own. The three of them met up with Mein later in the afternoon, and they all went to several hotels. At Pinner’s suggestion, Young and Mein stopped in at the confectionary. Pepina and her sister were standing behind the counter.39

Young shared that he and his friends were ‘joking and laughing’ with each other, when Pinner requested peanuts.40 Pepina seemed upset and told them to leave. Mein asked her what was wrong, and she again told them to get out. The men refused. Pepina went into the bedroom, and when she returned she told them for the third time to go. Young didn’t see a revolver in her hands. Pepina went towards the backdoor, as the trio exited the confectionary. Young stated that no one followed Pepina to the bedroom. Nor did any of them touch the pickles or play with the skipping ropes. They never used foul language or joked with her, only with each other. He didn’t know if she’d taken off her jacket.

Young stated that he and Pinner left first, and Mein joined them on the street. The trio met up with the other men outside the Northern Hotel. The victim was the only one that wanted to go back and find out why Pepina had threatened him with a revolver. The accused’s lawyer asked Young why the woman had gotten upset. He answered, ‘I suppose she got angry at us laughing and joking.’41 Young wouldn’t say what exactly they were joking about, but did clarify that they weren’t making fun of the store. 

    Alfred Reid testified that he was on the streetcar with Mein.