← Canadian True Crime![The Pacific Junction Murders [2] — Canadian True Crime cover](https://assets.pippa.io/shows/61b7653d169562084ee95064/1741369296082-27e5e6a6-fc9d-4a24-ae93-670ae4ca94fe.jpeg)
Loading summary
Transcript17 lines
- [00:00]
A
A Better Help ad. Hold on one second. I just need to. What if you had a room where no one interrupts, no notifications, no expectations, just space to talk with. BetterHelp therapy happens in a space that's yours. Visit betterhelp.comrandompodcast for 10% off your first month of online therapy. This is a Monday.com ad the samemonday.com helping people worldwide getting work done faster and better. The same Monday.com designed for every team and every industry. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one. The same Monday.com that your team will actually love using the samemonday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free. Yes the same Monday.com
- [01:04]
B
Canadian true crime is a completely independent production funded mainly through advertising. The podcast often has disturbing content and coarse language. It's not for everyone. Please take care when listening this is
- [01:16]
A
part two of a two part series. Where we left off Philip Lake and his common law wife Bertha Ring had been murdered at their New Brunswick Wick home in the morning hours of January 6, 1936. Their toddler Jackie was left to die of exposure outside and their tiny shack was set on fire. Their four month old baby Betty wasn't found and it was assumed that her remains were consumed by the flames. Earlier that evening, several locals had seen 19 year old Arthur Bannister walking in the area with his.22 caliber rifle. When the RCMP went to the Bannister home with a mitten found along the trail, his 20 year old brother Daniel Bannister identified it as belonging to him, but said he'd loaned it to Arthur. And then investigators discovered a baby at the Bannister home that at first their 40 year old mother Mae Bannister insisted was hers, but she soon changed her story and said her 15 year old daughter Frances was brought the baby home after rescuing it from a house fire. It seemed likely that this baby and little Betty Lake were one and the same, but there were so many unanswered questions, the grand jury determined that brothers Arthur Bannister and Daniel Bannister would go to trial on murder and kidnapping charges where they would face a mandatory death sentence if found guilty. Because the stories they'd given to investigators had been so different they would need separate trials. Their mother May would also go on trial on charges amounting to procuring, counselling and harbouring a kidnapped child. All three trials would be held in March of 1936, three months after the Lake family murders and they would be the first ever kidnapping trials in the province of New Brunswick. 19 year old Arthur Bannister's trial was first and he was seen in the prisoner's dock dressed in brown trousers, a blue shirt that was undone at the neck and a heavy blue coat. He spoke clearly when the indictment was read to him, entering a plea of not guilty to the charges. 20 year old Daniel also pleaded not guilty at his trial and was seen wearing dark trousers, a blue shirt, a tie and a heavy blue sweater. Neither of the brothers could read or write, and there was speculation that they both may have had additional intellectual challenges. Daniel Bannister also dealt with physical health issues that caused delays in the proceedings. He was frequently unwell and was said to have had epilepsy. Newspapers would describe him suffering from weak spells and there were concerns that he may not have been competent to stand trial. The judge brought in a doctor who determined that Daniel was, quote, crafty and knew what's what. The Crown's star witness was 15 year old Frances Bannister, who testified at both of her brother's trials. The RCMP had detained her for more than three months as a material witness, only being released from jail when she was required to testify. And by the time she was called to testify, she was described as a clearly reluctant witness. Frances was composed, but also openly defiant, even when the judge threatened her with jail time for being in contempt of court. She didn't deny that the details she'd given so far had been contradictory, but she wouldn't give a straight answer as to why. Remember, she first insisted that the baby found at the Bannister home belonged to her mother. But then, after May changed her own story, Frances did too, insisting that her older brother Daniel had asked her to keep him company on the way to the lake shack so they could bring their other brother Arthur home. And as she waited at the door, she said Arthur suddenly opened it and handed her a baby, which she carried back home in the witness box. Frances Bannister confirmed that on January 2, three nights before the murders, she and her brother Daniel did the 20 mile trek over to the lake family's home because she knew her other brother Arthur was staying there in an outhouse to prepare for going trapping. Remember, there was a local trapper named Earl o' Brien who was also at that outhouse with Arthur and gave his account of hearing voices outside and seeing a young man and teenage girl wearing men's trousers standing there. For unknown reasons, Earl watched Arthur grab his rifle and go out to speak with them. And then he came in and they went home. Earl had no idea what it was all about, and Frances apparently didn't either. She started off by saying she had no idea why she and Daniel had to go there and meet Arthur. But later on, in cross examination, she did admit that she knew the purpose of their trip was to get baby Betty. The Crown would tell the court that this was actually the first attempt at the murder and kidnap plot, but it failed because the siblings didn't expect Earl o' Brien to be at the outhouse with Arthur. Frances continued telling the jury that three days after that, on the evening of January 5th, she and Daniel returned to the Lake family shack for the same reason, to pick up their brother Arthur. They left their home at around 8pm, trudging through the snow covered woods, and arrived at the lake's shack just before midnight. She said Arthur came outside to meet them and then returned inside while she and Daniel waited. Frances told the jury that Daniel did not go into the lake's shack the night of the murders. She said she heard what sounded like a gunshot and then Arthur emerged from the shack holding a baby wrapped in a blanket. She wouldn't say what he said to her when he handed her the bundle. As she and Daniel turned back and started walking home with the baby, she heard a woman scream and looked back, seeing something glowing red between the trees around the place where the shack stood. Frances testified that after about 20 minutes of walking, Arthur caught up with them, and as they continued walking home together, she watched him break his.22 calibre rifle in half and throw the pieces into the bushes where investigators later found it. The court heard that when the trio arrived home with the baby, their mother, May, was pleased. Frances had admitted under cross examination that they were there to get the baby, but she wasn't forthcoming with any answers as to why. And it didn't go unnoticed that her testimony didn't include any details that implicated her mother, other than saying she was pleased when they returned home. Defence Counsel Lambert would tell the jury that Frances had been under the influence of the RCMP and from the night she'd been taken into custody, quote, all the time Frances gave evidence, there were five or six RCMP constables in their scarlet tunics down there to the left of the prisoner. They did not sit there while any other witnesses gave evidence. I submit that she was under the influence of the police even while she was giving evidence. And during the time she was on the witness stand, they sat down there with their eyes on the little girl. Also entered into evidence were the Crime scene photos and maps indicating where the bodies were found and those two gold teeth belonging to Philip Lake. At the second autopsy, a.22 calibre bullet was found in Philip's skull. And a ballistics expert testified that he had reassembled Arthur's broken.22 calibre rifle and fired bullets from it, and then compared those bullets to the one retrieved from Philip Lake's skull. He determined that the marks found on the bullets were a match. Neither Arthur Bannister nor Daniel Bannister testified in their own defence. Arthur was seen smiling every so often from the prisoner's dock, clearly undisturbed by the reasons he was there. In closing arguments, the Crown presented its theory about what the evidence showed likely happened that evening. Frances had testified that Arthur left in the afternoon and she and Daniel left hours later, meeting him outside the Lake family shack at about midnight. After one or both men entered the home, Frances reported hearing a gunshot and then Arthur appeared at the door with a baby, which he handed to her. The Crown told the court that the gunshot she heard was when a bullet was fired from Arthur's.22 calibre rifle into Philip Lake's skull. Defence counsel Lambert argued that there was no proof of who actually fired the gun. But the Crown said it didn't matter who used what what weapon. Frances had not only placed both her brothers at the scene, but she also positively identified one of two knives found in the rubble as belonging to her brother Daniel. She said it was a knife that he always carried under his belt but was now missing. There was no proof that anyone else was around that evening. And it all amounted to evidence that both men had gone to the Lake family shack armed and with intent to kidnap the baby. Crown prosecutor P.J. hughes said, quote, there is no doubt Philip Lake was shot and that four month old Betty Lake was taken from her mother's side, perhaps as she slept. Frances had testified that after she was handed the baby and started running, she heard a woman screaming. Phillip Lake's common law wife, Bertha, was likely asleep when the Banisters showed up. And even though she was almost naked, she didn't hesitate to grab her toddler Jackie and run for her life. The two sets of footprints in the snow leading away from the house to the spot where her body was found was evidence that someone had been running after her to the spot where her body was located. About a quarter, a quarter of a mile away from the shack. There were blood drops in the snow, evidence that she was likely bludgeoned with an object as she tried to keep Running. Seriously injured and growing weaker from her head wound, Bertha dropped little Jackie and collapsed just 40ft away. She likely spent her last few minutes alive, thrashing and writhing in desperation to save her toddler. And her agony was physically etched into the snow at her final resting place. Whoever it was that chased her ran back to the shack, leaving her bleeding out and little Jackie floundering in the snow, where he would soon freeze to death. The Crown said. Nobody said anything. Nobody turned back. Footprints in the snow showed police pretty well what happened, at least in the bush. The evidence showed that after the Lake family home was set alight, the two brothers started the trek back home. Once they caught up with their sister, Arthur broke his rifle and threw the splintered pieces into the snow, likely thinking he was destroying evidence. When it came to Daniel Bannister's involvement, the Crown said that the evidence showed he was present and therefore just as guilty as his brother. Defence counsel Lambert tried many tactics in both Arthur and Daniel's trials. He tried to cast doubt that the charred remains belonged to Philip Lake. Despite the dental records. He insinuated that the relationship between Philip Lake and Bertha Ring was tumultuous and that a fight may have broken out between them and that led to a murder. Suicide. He tried another tactic. The Crown has not yet provided a motive. But in Moncton, there is a man who had a motive. He is Marshall Ring, former husband of the woman living with this man, Lake. It had been at least two years since Bertha left him for Philip Lake, but the defence tried to present him as an alternate suspect who returned to get his revenge. Lambert described the Bannister young men as being poor, in rags, separated from their mother, as the RCMP used every tactic in the book to drag them down. He described the case against Daniel Bannister as being purely circumstantial, with no evidence that placed him inside the house. But the judge pushed back on this, telling the jury, quote, if a gang plans a murder, each and every one of them is guilty, regardless of which one planned the act. Should you come to the conclusion that Daniel Bannister went to Philip Blake's house to steal the Lake baby and someone did an act which caused it, then that is murder. Both Daniel Bannister and Arthur Bannister were found guilty of murder. Murder, a crime that carried a mandatory death sentence. Their mother, Mae Bannister, was apparently beside herself when she learned about this verdict. But Arthur seemed unfazed. He was seen smiling and rubbing his nose with his sleeve before being led back to his jail cell. When it came to Daniel's guilty verdict. The jury recommended clemency. It may have been because of his intellectual and health challenges, or maybe because there was reasonable doubt about his level of participation in the murders. But the judge didn't agree and sentenced both men to death by hanging. Defence lawyer Lambert announced his intention to appeal the conviction on the basis that Francis was a reluctant witness who had been compelled held to testify against her brothers when she didn't really want to. But the judge had actually referenced this in his charge to the jury, so there were no grounds for appeal. He had said, of course she was reluctant. She was brought here to testify against her brother. But she told of what happened. And the only thing you must consider is sworn evidence given by living persons in this court. There was one giant unanswered question left in the closing arguments of Arthur Bannister's trial defence counsel Lambert referenced the Crown's assertion that the crime was a murder kidnap plot. He asked the jury to consider why 19 year old Arthur Bannister would want a baby. Look at him. What would he do with a baby? There are plenty in Moncton that may be had without committing murder. A baby would only be an added expense to an already poverty stricken family. A young, good looking girl like Frances could, without any trouble, have got a baby in Monkton. Yet the Crown claimed she had gone to Lake's home to get one. It was the last remaining question. Why were the Bannisters so intent on kidnapping a baby? What purpose was a baby going to serve in their lives? And why did the Lake family have to be murdered to get that baby? The answers would come as part of May Bannister's trial.
- [18:31]
B
What if a marginal gain unlocked greater performance? What if an insight in data could change everything? At Aramco, our focus on detail helps us deliver reliable energy to millions across the world. Because margins aren't marginal. They're where we can truly push the limits of what's possible. Aramco, an integrated energy and chemicals company. Learn more@aramco.com I'm Jake Stauch, co founder and CEO of Cervel. We built Serval to automate the IT work that slows companies down. Onboarding password resets, access to applications. My laptop stopped working. While employees wait for help, their real work is put on hold. IT desperately wants to automate this work. And that's why they need Servil. You just tell Servil what you want to automate in plain English and it's built. No drag and drop workflows, no expensive consultants. Employees get unblocked and IT teams go from drowning in tickets to building what actually matters. With Cerval, it becomes the AI engine powering the entire company. This is a new way to run it. We guarantee you'll automate 50% of all tickets and we'll prove it to you in a free four week pilot. Go to serval.comacast that's S E R V A L.comacast.
- [20:12]
A
The trial of Mae Bannister opened with a bizarre reveal. A life size baby doll was brought into the court and the jury heard that this doll had been found. During the search of the Bannister home, it was admitted into evidence. As the doll was passed to Justice Barry, he jokingly asked the Crown if it was alive. The prosecutor replied, that seems to have been one of the defects, my lord. The Crown told jurors that towards the end of 1935, Mae Bannister had been trying to pass the doll off as a newborn by carrying it around Monkton wrapped tightly in a blanket to conceal the dupe. He told the jury that the device that makes the doll squeak had been removed, likely because it was a giveaway that it was a doll and not a baby again. Baby Betty Lake was brought into the courtroom to be identified by Otto Blackney. She had since been put up for adoption and there was a considerable amount of interest. According to newspapers, the Crown's case was that the whole murder kidnapping plot had been the brainchild of Mae Bannister, who had the ultimate goal of using a baby to extort money from two men. One of those men was Milton Trites, who met the Bannister family through the Salvation Army. He testified about hiring Mae Bannister as his housekeeper, stating that she would sometimes stay overnight at his house. It wasn't overtly said, but it appeared that Milton Trites and Mae Bannister were having a relationship of some sort of. And he generously gave the family money, food and groceries. The Crown's case was that Mae Bannister needed more. More assistance, more money, more food. And she was looking at ways to guilt Milton into being even more generous. And that's where a baby came in. Milton Trites told the jury about the fall of 1935 when May suddenly told him she had to quit working as his housekeeper for a while because she was leaving to give to his baby. The Crown asked him if he was under the impression that he had actually fathered the baby and he said not wholly, but he was partially convinced whether or Not Milton trites 100% believed he was the Father of the baby Mae said she was pregnant with. He took his responsibility seriously, immediately arranging for a crib and other supplies for the family in anticipation of their upcoming arrival. He told the jury that May Bannister returned sometime in December saying she'd had a baby girl in Monkton but had to leave her there for a little while. She said that some of her acquaintances there had seen her holding the baby. On January 6, the same day the Lake family murders were discovered, Mae Bannister asked Milton to come over to her house so he could meet the baby for the first time. Milton raced over and when he saw the infant, he asked May if they could name her Thyra Milton Trites. He said May agreed. As the police were investigating the Lake family murders, Milton was buying groceries for the whole Bannister family, as well as medicine, clothes and other items for their new baby. It appeared that Milton was very fond of Mae Bannister and her family. When the arrests started happening. He took care of the unidentified baby girl as well as 13 year old Marie Bannister until her father returned. And there was speculation that Milton Trites may have been the mystery man who retained and paid for defence counsel Murray Lambert to represent the Bannister family members in all legal proceedings. As you'll remember, it was also stated that he was likely to be a Crown witness and not related to the Bannister family. But Milton Trites was not the only man May Bannister was targeting for extortion. The court heard testimony from another man, Albert Powell, the busy railway freight checker, part time Sunday school teacher and generous Salvation army volunteer. Albert testified about that strange day that May suddenly accused him of getting 13 year old Marie pregnant. She told me Marie was going to have a baby and that I was going to be responsible for its upkeep. But I stood my ground because I was an innocent man. He told the jury that May threatened to shoot him, but she had a change of heart. After he reprimanded her and reminded her how much he had done for the family. May apologised for speaking to him too severely and begged him to come visit their home again. On the stand, Albert Powell was asked about his personal generosity towards the Bannister family. And he testified that he had given them over $200 the previous year, A considerable amount of money for the time. He said he had also fulfilled many handwritten grocery lists the Bannisters had given him. He told the jury that May Bannister knew he owned property in Moncton worth around $4,000, which adjusted for inflation would be about $83,000 today. As he testified, Mae Bannister shouted out, that's enough of your lies. I'll throw something at you. Defence counsel Lambert urged his client to stop, but she continued, I won't keep quiet. He's going on lying too long. And then she put her head into her hands, crying as she cowered in her seat. There were quite a few dramatic moments like this. Albert backed up the testimony that Frances had given that one of the knives found in the rubble was identical to one owned by Daniel Bannister. He said he had seen Daniel's knife before at the Bannister home, but he never saw Mae Bannister with a baby or a life sized baby doll. He said after May begged him to continue visiting, he did for a few more weeks. But each time he started to get the feeling that he wasn't needed as much as he would say. There was a falling off in the friendship and they seemed to be more taken with James Sargent, who had a car and I did not. James Sargent was a colleague of Albert Powell's and he often assisted the Bannister family by driving them into Monkton. The court heard that when May was originally asked to provide proof that the baby was hers, James Sargent was one of the people she named as having seen or spoke spoken to her in Moncton while she was holding the baby. But James shook his head. He testified that he saw May with a bundle that he assumed was a baby. He never saw an actual baby and neither did the other people that May named. James Sargent spoke about a strange request that May made of him later on that evening. He asked her if the baby was a boy or a girl and she told him never mind. And then she specifically asked him not to mention anything about the baby to his colleague Albert Powell. Defence counsel Lambert insinuated that Albert had been engaging in sexual activity with Frances and Marie Bannister, arguing that there was no way that all his generosity was for religious reasons alone. Albert categorically denied it, making it clear that he was greatly offended by the suggestion. He stated he had no other intention but to give the impoverished Bannisters a helping hand and his only interest in the teenage girls was that of a friend. Frances had started her testimony again with her version of what happened at the Lake family shack in the early morning hours of January 6, 1936. Again, she didn't implicate her mother in any way. But she did admit that in the months beforehand, May had expressed a desire to adopt a baby girl. Her mother couldn't read or write. So Frances was asked to write some letters to several hospitals and orphanages requesting to adopt a baby. Evidently, that plan didn't work out. Frances was asked about the life sized baby doll that investigators had found at her home and she insisted it had been purchased as a Christmas gift for 13 year old Marie. And the reason they had removed the squeaker was because apparently Marie didn't like the noise. Frances also claimed that the bottles and baby clothes found at the house went with the doll. It was all part of Marie's Christmas gift. There were other witnesses who testified about Mae Bannister's past deceit. One woman operated a rooming house and knew May six years earlier under a different name, Mrs. Benny Hughes. She told the jury that May suddenly showed up again In December of 1935, just weeks before the Lake family murders. And she reported that her husband, Benny Hughes had been burned in a fire. But she had a new husband now, a farmer named Trites, who apparently provided a comfortable home for her and her three children, which now included a baby. The witness testified, quote, I know now that she lied to me about being married to a man named Trites and that Benny Hughes had been burned up in a jail fire when she was at my home six years ago. She never, never mentioned her boys or two girls. Another witness testified that Mae Bannister did housework for him about five or six years earlier, but he knew her as Rosie Hughes. When asked if he was positive that the woman he knew was the same one in the prisoner's dock, he replied, yes, I'd know her if I met her in my porridge dish like the other witness. He said May showed back up just a few weeks before the Lake family murders, asking to stay because she was on her way to visit a sick aunt and had no money to stay at a hotel. She didn't mention anything about a baby. And there was no information about whether the Crown considered these interactions related to the Lake family murders. But it certainly showed that Mae Bannister was not no stranger to manipulation and not afraid to feed people lies. The Crown summarised the case in closing arguments. Mae Bannister wanted Milton Trites and Albert Powell to provide her family with more money, goods and food. But she didn't want to beg. She wanted to put a moral obligation on them to continue to be personally generous. And she decided a baby would be the perfect way. She accused Albert Powell of getting 13 year old Marie pregnant. But after he expressed his outrage at the suggestion, she immediately backed down. But when it came to Milton trites it was a bit easier because it appeared that the two had a casual intimate relationship. So this time she told him she was the one who was pregnant, the child was his and the baby was due in the next month or two. Believing there was a possibility it was true, Milton stepped up right away to provide for the upcoming arrival. Meanwhile, Mae Bannister had been working to procure a real baby. She knew that Philip Lake's common law wife was due to give birth and she sent her sons over to see if Philip would let them have the baby. May likely assumed that the Lake family baby was unplanned and unwanted and the couple might welcome someone else to provide for her. But Philip Lake laughed at them. No one was taking his baby. May had also assumed that it would be easy to find a baby to adopt. But it wasn't, and the clock was ticking. She'd told Milton she would be leaving soon to give baby birth, so she had to come up with some solution quickly. The evidence shows she took off to Monkton, where she bundled up a life sized baby doll and carried it around, telling her acquaintances that she'd just given birth. This stopgap measure didn't fool anyone in Moncton, but it at least bought her some time to figure out how to get a real baby. The Crown asserted that as May became more desperate, she hatched the plan for her sons to kidnap that Lake family baby and then persuaded them to execute the plan, effectively turning them into murderers and kidnappers. The Gazette reported that Mae Bannister, who was dressed in a brown winter coat, dark blue hat and a blue dress, cried continuously as she had throughout her trial. The defence claimed the Crown hadn't shown any link between Mae Bannister and the kidnapping and she might not have even been awake when Arthur, Daniel and Frances arrived home with baby Betty that night. But no one believed that was true. The jury found Mae Bannister guilty of harbouring a child with intent to assist the abductor who committed the crime. Still sobbing since the first day of the proceedings had begun, May Bannister was led back into her cell to await her sentencing hearing. Presiding Judge Justice J.H. barry sentenced Mae Bannister to three and a half years in prison. He commented that never before has he seen such a case in the courts of New Brunswick because there were no female cell blocks in the old Dorchester County Jail in New Brunswick. Mae Bannister was taken to Kingston Penitentiary, Ontario, to serve her sentence. The bizarre and twisted story of the Bannister family had captured national and international headlines. In Texas, the El Paso Times published a feature titled Still a the murder of Three for a Baby Nobody Wants. It described Mae Bannister as a quote, scowling Amazon of the bush and her four children were quote, born and raised with scarcely more attention than a litter of timber wolves receives and hardly as much food. These children were Daniel, not very bright, Arthur slack jawed but sharp, Frances dark, solid and attractive and Marie undernourished and neurotic. The San Francisco examiner was just one of several papers in the United States who published a syndicated full page story with photos under the headline the last chapter of Canada's Doll Baby Murder. The sub headline read, quote, the two young Bannister brothers go to the gallows for a strange crime of the desolate north proving again that the Mounties are always get their man. The article was accompanied by a rather grim illustration of Daniel and Arthur Bannister simultaneously killing Philip Lake while setting fire to the shack, hitting Bertha Ring with the butt of a rifle as she ran out of the house with little Jackie while sister Frances ran off with baby Betty. Defence counsel Lambert continued to represent the Bannister family to the best of his ability, first lodging an appeal for Arthur's conviction. He complained that the gruesome crime scene photos may have unfairly prejudiced the jury against Arthur and that the Crown had only presented circumstantial evidence. It had not proved that the Bannisters had gone to the house for any illegal or nefarious picture purpose. He suggested several other explanations for what might have happened that night. For example, Arthur might have been rescuing Bertha from an abusive relationship or perhaps the murders were committed in self defence. He also suggested that Frances Bannister may have been much more involved than she admitted to the appeal judges dismissed this commenting that these points were pretty hard to swallow and they couldn't see any circumstances that implicated 15 year old Francis as being an accomplice to the murders. Lambert used his judgment to appeal Daniel Bannister's conviction on the same grounds. If there was nothing that implicated Francis, he argued, then there wouldn't be anything to implicate Daniel on this. The appeal judges agreed. They found it was the Crown's responsibility to prove that Daniel knew or ought to have known that murder was a probable consequence of their plan to kidnap the baby. And because the trial judge had failed to tell the jury that this was the very point they had to decide, a new trial was ordered for Daniel Bannister. The original three trials had all been held in March of 1936 after the guilty verdicts A date had been set for the brothers to be hanged, but it was postponed when Daniel was granted a new trial just in case Arthur was called to testify. Daniel's second trial started at the end of June. The court heard testimony from all the same witnesses as the first trial, including Frances. Except this time the defense insisted that the RCMP officers lie leave the courtroom complaining that they may have influenced the 15 year old last time she testified and they might do it again. Frances's testimony was the same. You'll remember there was some controversy around a statement Daniel had dictated and signed after he'd been arrested. The one that cleared himself while implicating his brother Arthur. The statement had been inadmissible as evidence, but the Crown tried to have it admitted again at Daniel's second trial. This time the defence didn't mind that the statement implicated Arthur, since Arthur had already been found guilty. The main issue this time was whether Daniel gave the statement voluntarily without threats or inducements. At Daniel's first trial, the defence had argued that he made a comment before before giving this statement that indicated he had been motivated by a fear of being sent to the gallows. So this time the Crown called two RCMP investigators who were present, one who typed out the statement and they both testified that Daniel dictated his statement voluntarily. But on cross examination, one of the investigators confirmed that the genesis of the statement was actually Daniel's statement cellmate who had approached them to let them know Daniel had been talking about the murders and had even drawn a map of the crime scene. The investigator said they sent the cellmate back to get more information and he returned with the map and directed them to another inmate who reported that he too had heard Daniel talking about the murders. The investigator denied the defence's suggestion that they offered $500 to this inmate if they could get Dan more. The investigator strenuously denied this and both inmates also testified that Daniel spoke freely to them about wanting to make a statement. At this trial, the only witness for the defence was Daniel Bannister himself. And he testified he couldn't remember giving the statement at all. In the end, it was again deemed inadmissible as evidence.
- [41:54]
B
Seeking, pushing, optimizing, creating, learning, discovering. At Aramco, we believe in harnessing the power of data to push the limits of what's possible. That's how we deliver reliable energy to millions across the world. Aramco, an integrated energy and chemicals company. Learn more about us@aramco.com I'm Jake Stauch, co founder and CEO of Cerval. We built Cerval to automate the IT work that slows companies down. Onboarding password resets, access to applications. My laptop stopped working. While employees wait for help, their real work is put on hold. IT desperately wants to automate this work and that's why they need Serval. You just tell Servil what you want to automate in plain English and it's built. No drag and drop workflows, no expensive consultants. Employees get unblocked and IT teams go from drowning in tickets to building what actually matters. With Cerbal, IT becomes the AI engine powering the entire company. This is a new way to run it. We guarantee you'll automate 50% of all tickets and we'll prove it to you in a free four week pilot. Go to cervel.com acast that's S E-R-V-A L.com acast.
- [43:34]
A
Neither Daniel nor Arthur Bannister had testified in their own defence in their original trials. So Daniel's choice to testify at his second trial attracted attention. It was the first time either of the Bannister boys had told their side of the story in court. Daniel's testimony was fairly consistent with the testimony given by his sister Frances. But there were a few key differences. Frances had testified that she went to the Lake shack to keep Daniel company, but Daniel testified the opposite. He implied that Frances told him that Bertha Lake was going to, quote, run away from her husband and asked Daniel to keep her company. It seemed that this might have been related to one of the alternative explanations that the defence had presented at the previous trial, that the Bannisters might have been rescuing Bertha from an abusive relationship with her common law husband, Philip Lake. But witnesses had described the Lake family as being sociable and fairly happy. There was no evidence that there was abuse or any kind of disharmony in their relationship. In any event, Daniel stated he had not gone there with the intent to do any harm. He told the jury that after he and Frances arrived at the shack on the night in question, they waited outside until Arthur appeared at the door with, quote, a bundle that he pushed into Frances arms and then fled with them from the building. Despite the fact that Arthur had already been found guilty of murder, it appeared that Daniel was trying to downplay his brother's involvement in the murders. Although he never said as much, he insisted that he and Frances didn't go any further than the front door of the shack and that he took no part in the murders. Daniel testified about what he saw and heard as they ran home. Quote, while we were going through the woods, I saw the sky, sky red and heard what sounded like a woman scream, he said. He asked what was happening and either his brother or sister told him to, quote, keep quiet and keep going. Daniel Bannister told a jury that at that time he had no idea what the bundle held. And in fact, he didn't even know it was a baby until after they arrived home. But as you'll remember, it took four hours for Daniel and Frances to trek through the snow to get to the lake home. So it's highly doubtful that Daniel completed the same trek back home without noticing that a four month old baby was along for the ride. The jury again found Daniel Bannister guilty of murder, but this time they did not recommend clemency. It appeared that Daniel's decision to testify had backfired. The judge immediately sentenced him to hang along with his brother. On September 23, 1936, Defence counsel Murray Lambert ended up appealing Daniel's conviction to the Supreme Court of New Brunswick. Perhaps he would be able to save Daniel from a death sentence. He claimed that Daniel's testimony was more consistent with his innocence than his guilt, and claimed the only thing the Crown had to rely on was the evidence given by Frances. But she said nothing that proved Daniel knew anything more about what they were doing that night than she did. Lambert also argued that the trial judge made an error when instructing the jury and that there had been grounds for a verdict of manslaughter in Daniel Bannister's case. The Chief justice responded that there were no reasonable circumstances that proved Philip Lake's death was the result of manslaughter. Crown prosecutor Hughes argued that the testimony Frances gave was consistent across all the trials. And the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn was that the Bannisters had intended to commit murder or get the Lake baby at any, any cost. And what's more, he stated that the testimony Frances gave actually provided enough evidence to warrant a conviction of murder against her as well. It appears that the only reason she wasn't charged was because she had been detained as a witness to testify against her brothers and mother instead. But now they'd all been convicted, so Frances wasn't needed anymore. In a cruel twist of fate, after Daniel's appeal was dismissed, the Crown approved a charge of kidnapping for Frances Bannister just five days before both of her brothers were due to be executed. Preparations were underway at the old Dorchester County Jail for the first double hanging in 12 years. The last one was in 1924, when four men were sent to the gallows for Committing a bank robbery in Montreal that went horribly wrong, leaving a bank employee dead. As preparations continued, defence counsel Lambert also continued to represent the Bannister family, this time with last ditch tactics to try and spare the lives of the brothers. He was now working on executive clemency and had requested intervention from the governor in council. But two days before the hanging date, a telegram was sent from Ottawa that stated there would be no reprieve or commutation of their sentences. The last chance to save their lives was gone. Historically, hangings were done publicly and onlookers were encouraged in part because it was believed that the public display of such terror would deter anyone else from committing a crime or defying the authorities. Of course, studies have shown this isn't true and public executions likely inspire more violence. Public hangings were outlawed in Canada in 1870. To prepare for this private double hanging inside Dorchester county jail, Scaffolding was erected behind the prison walls as well as a makeshift gallows. Canada's official executioner, Arthur Ellis, was summoned to carry out the sentences. This was a very high profile case and public opinion was divided. Some people were happy to see Arthur and Daniel Bannister sent to the gallows for the murder of the Lake family. But others were outraged that two young men had been sentenced to death when they were only carrying out a plot masterminded by their devious mother, who got off lightly with only three and a half years in prison. The Montreal Gazette quoted officials at the prison who said the brothers were in good spirits. They'd been eating and sleeping well and had been visited by a member of the salvation army. Their elderly father, William Bannister, and sisters Frances and Marie had been permitted to visit them to say goodbye. Despite the fact that their sister's testimony was a key factor in their trip to the gallows, they showed no ill will towards Frances. They both hugged her and Arthur told her he hoped that, quote, nothing happened in the trial. I won't see you anymore. But you, you be a good girl. Their mother, Mae Bannister, was still in Kingston penitentiary in Ontario and reportedly was not permitted to speak with her sons to say goodbye before they were executed. When the time came on September 23, 1936, Arthur and Daniel Bannister were called from their cell and led to the makeshift gallows. Standing back to back on the trapdoor as the nooses were placed around their necks, Daniel complained, quote, it's too tight, I can't pray. According to the Windsor star, a spectator believed they heard him mumble, quote, innocent and paying for somebody else's. Crime. The bodies of Arthur and Daniel Bannister were placed into a single wooden coffin which was buried in a fresh grave dug on the grounds of the old Dorchester county jail. Enthusiastic locals gathered to watch as two members of the family that had captured their attention for the previous nine months were buried in a jail yard grave. The same rope used to end their lives was also used to lower their coffin into the ground. Just two days later, Francis Bannister appeared in juvenile court charged with kidnapping. But it was all over very quickly because the Attorney General's office stepped in and requested that the charges be withdrawn. There's little information about the reasons for this, but it can be assumed that Frances had dealt with more than enough trauma. The 15 year old had been in custody for nine months by this point, held as a material witness and only allowed out when the state needed her to testify. And after her brothers had been sent to the gallows and her mother was sentenced to jail time, Frances was no longer needed so she could finally be charged with kidnapping. It would have been cruel and unusual punishment, but luckily it was un over. The local media reported that Frances walked free from the courtroom with her father and it was presumed that she went back to live with him and her sister Marie in the same ramshackle home where the inception of the twisted kidnap murder plot had occurred. According to online records, William Bannister only lived for six more years and passed away aged 80. Frances Bannister never married and sadly died of tuberculosis in 1947, five years after her father. She was just 26 years old. Marie Bannister got married at 17 to a 24 year old labourer. She went on to give birth to four children and died a widow in 1998 aged 75. Her mother, Mae Bannister, lived until she was 74 years old, dying in 1969. And finally, there's little Betty Lake, the baby at the centre of Mae Bannister's murder kidnap, extortion plot. When the trials were happening in 1936, local papers reported she had been placed in in the care of a relative who had made a formal application to adopt her. The adoption was successful, but the details of Betty's life after that are scarce. It seems she got married at some point, never had any children and died in 1991 in Saint John, New Brunswick. She was 55 years old. The old Dorchester county jail was the location of the last double hanging in Canada and also the place where the Bannister brothers were buried. On site now, the heritage listed building is the only privately owned provincial jail in Canada and it goes by the Dorchester Jail Airbnb. There's photos and more information on the website dorchesterjail.com if the rave reviews are anything to go by. It's an extremely popular destination for visitors who want to experience one night staying in one of the jail cells that the Banister brothers may have called home for a time back in 1936. Thanks for listening. And special thanks to Eileen McFarlane from Crime Time Lapse for her work on researching and writing this case. For the full list of resources we relied on to write this episode and anything else you want to know about the podcast, visit the page for each episode@canadiantruechrime.ca. audio editing and production was by We Talk of Dreams, who also composed the theme songs. Production assistance was by Jesse Hawke with script consistency consulting by Carol Weinberg. Writing, narration, sound design and additional research was by me and the disclaimer was voiced by Eric Crosby. Hannah, I just Venmoed you for dinner. Obsessed. I'm literally spending it right now on the lip gloss that's been sitting in my cart. What do you mean spending it right now? You instantly spend your balance with the Venmo debit card. Stop. Say more. More. Exactly. The more you do with Venmo, the more you get. Like earning up to 5% cash. Back with Venmo Stash get the Venmo debit card or check out online. Venmo Stash Bundle terms and exclusions apply. Max $100 per month. See terms at Venmo Me Stash Terms Venmo Checkout not available at all merchants. The Venmo MasterCard is issued by the Bancorp Bank NA
- [58:08]
B
Acast Powers the world's best podcasts.
- [58:12]
A
Here's a show that we rec recommend.
- [58:16]
B
Do you like being educated on things that entertain but don't matter? Well, then you need to be listening to the Podcast with Knox and Jamie. Every Wednesday we put together an episode dedicated to delightful idiocy to give your brain a break from all the serious and important stuff. Whether we're deep diving a classic movie, dissecting the true meanings behind the newest slang, or dunking on our own listeners for their bad takes or cringy stories, we always approach our topics with humor
- [58:37]
A
and just a little bit of sl
- [58:38]
B
side eye, and we end every episode with recommendations on all the best new movies, books, TV shows or music.
- [58:44]
A
To find out more, just search up
- [58:45]
B
the Podcast with Knox and Jamie wherever
- [58:47]
A
you listen to podcasts and prepare to
- [58:48]
B
make Wednesday your new favorite day of the week.
- [58:54]
A
Acast helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com.