died from a combination of strangulation and drowning. Her
jeans were undone and her underwear was found nearby. Forensic
investigators found semen in Ms. Werendowicz’s perianal area
and vagina and on her jeans.
[ 6] The police obtained a sample of the appellant’s DNA in
1998. His DNA matched the DNA taken from the semen found in
the victim. At trial, the defence admitted that the appellant was
the source of the semen.
[ 7] Two days after the homicide in June 1981, someone anonymously made a 911 call to the Hamilton Police Department. The
caller claimed to have information about the murder. Among
other things, he indicated that the victim had been raped, strangled with the strap of her purse and left face down in a “crick”.
All of these details were accurate. The Crown asserted that the
caller’s knowledge of the facts showed that he was involved in the
[ 8] The Crown led evidence purporting to trace the 911 call.
That evidence placed the call as having been made from a phone
booth just outside of Gate 6 at Dofasco. The appellant worked in
the hot mill about 100 feet from the phone booth. The call was
made at a time when the appellant was at work, and on his lunch
[ 9] The tracing evidence had been excluded at the earlier trials.
This court held that it should have been admitted and directed a
new trial on that ground. The jury at the fourth trial was the first
jury to hear this evidence.
[ 10] As Strathy J.A. observed in Badgerow #2, at para. 175, the
evidence concerning the tracing of the 911 call and the DNA evi-
dence had to be considered in combination. He described the
effect of that evidence, at para. 175:
The 911 call resulted in the dispatch of police to a location within 100 feet of
the workplace of a man whose DNA was later discovered in and on the victim.
That man subsequently admitted to intercourse with the victim on the night
she was killed. Independent triangulation of the DNA evidence and the 911-
trace evidence located someone with unique and intimate knowledge of the
victim on the night she died. This was powerful corroboration of the reliabil-
ity of the evidence [the tracing evidence], because the possibility of coinci-
dence is highly unlikely.
[ 11] In addition to the tracing evidence and the DNA evidence,
the Crown led evidence from several witnesses who identified the
appellant’s voice on a recording of the 911 call.
[ 12] The appellant testified. He indicated that he had met Ms.
Werendowicz in the parking lot of the bar after she left the bar.
They had no prior connection with each other. After smoking
some marijuana, they had consensual sexual intercourse in the