the declarant’s truthfulness about, or the accuracy of, the material aspects of the statement.
 The appellant submits that the trial judge erred in relying
on the statements as being mutually corroborative. I agree. It is
possible that Messrs. Mullen and McLellan discussed Mr. Mullen’s September 2010 statement to the police before Mr. McLellan
spoke to the police. In addition, it is clear that material parts of
the statements were influenced by leading questions and suggestions made by the police. As Bradshaw makes clear, at para. 50,
corroborative evidence must be trustworthy and this evidence
 The trial judge also relied on corroborative evidence that
did not implicate the appellant. She found support for this
approach in R. v. Khela,  1 S.C.R. 104,  S.C.J. No. 4,
2009 SCC 4, at paras. 39-40, where the court stated that confirmatory evidence need not implicate the accused, but should give the
court comfort that the witness was truthful in relevant aspects of
his or her account. Khela was a case about the reliability of
Vetrovec witnesses. The approach taken in that context was
rejected by the majority in Bradshaw for use in the analysis of
the admissibility of hearsay statements under the principled
approach: see Bradshaw, at paras. 44-47. Therefore, the trial
judge erred in relying on any evidence that does not go to the
material aspects of a hearsay statement.
 The Crown concedes that the trial judge erred in this
regard but argues that she identified four sufficient categories of
corroborative evidence to support the material aspects of the
statements to establish threshold reliability.
 First, the Crown relies on the evidence regarding the
recovery of the black hoodies worn by the Toronto Three at the
time of their arrest, including one with an Ohio State logo.
The appellant’s sister attended that school at the time.
 Second, the Crown relies on evidence that suggests that no
threats were made against the appellant when the Toronto Three
were at his home. Specifically, it points to the text messages
between the appellant and Mr. Barnett after the home invasion
that show no sign of concern on the appellant’s part. The intercepted telephone calls between the appellant and his mother
wherein the appellant distanced himself from the story he told
the Buchanans are also cited as corroborative. Further, the
Crown notes the evidence of the appellant’s brother, who was
home at the time the Toronto Three visited. It did not appear to
him that any threatening took place nor did the appellant tell him
about the threats.