Thursday Thinkpiece: Rough & Messy Justice

Periodically on Thursdays, we present a significant excerpt, usually from a recently published book or journal article. In every case the proper permissions have been obtained. If you are a publisher who would like to participate in this feature, please let us know via the site’s contact form.

Screenshot

Rough & Messy Justice: A Train Heist, Murder & Misdeeds

Author: W. Keith Regular
Foreword by Hon. Peter W. L. Martin
Publisher: Durvile
Publication Date: May 1, 2025
True Cases Series, Book 12
ISBN: 978-1-990735-66-0 (pbk)
E-book and audiobook also available
6” x 9” | 288 Pages | B/W Photographs
Price: $35 in Canada, $29.95 in US

Excerpt: “Cold Silent Lips” Bassoff Faces Justice

Thomas Bassoff’s trial for murder opened at Macleod, Alberta on October 12, 1920, with Justice Maitland McCarthy, Supreme Court of Alberta, presiding. It quickly became obvious that Bassoff was both friendless and penniless and could not afford legal representation. With no promise of remuneration, lawyer G.E.A. Rice quit as Bassoff’s defence counsel and Macleod lawyer J.D. Matheson was parachuted into the position shortly after the opening of proceedings. Only then did the court accept Bassoff’s “not guilty” plea. Though considered “able and experienced” Matheson had no time to properly review evidence and prepare a defence. J.W. McDonald K.C. acted for the Crown. McDonald decided, based, no doubt on what he had garnered from police reports and eyewitness testimony during the Preliminary Inquiry, that the strongest case for conviction lay in charging Bassoff with Constable Bailey’s murder. Success in this case precluded the need to proceed with charges against Bassoff for Corporal Usher’s murder.

Defendant Bassoff was reportedly unconcerned as the Crown began its prosecution. If such was the case it was attributable, perhaps, to his lack of familiarity with Canadian law, and ignorance of his fragile legal situation made even more tenuous by the lack of consultation with Matheson. During his opening remarks Crown Counsel McDonald, keenly aware of the considerable residual animosity expressed in the press and elsewhere against foreigners, prudently warned the jurors to ignore anything they had read in the papers. Given the proclivity of the press to pronounce Bassoff guilty, however, such an admonishment came much too late to have any salutary effect in the defendant’s favour. McDonald did not mention that Bassoff’s Preliminary Inquiry was held in Lethbridge, rather than in the Crowsnest, because the police feared that “sympathizers might make some attempt to get him free from custody.”

McDonald opened his prosecution with dramatic flair intent on captivating his audience with a tension-building story. He described the interior of the café booth, Akroff’s and Bassoff’s positions at table, and Frewin’s and Usher’s approach. He then recalled that Frewin entered the booth, identified himself and Usher as police officers, stated that Akroff and Bassoff were wanted men, and issued his demand for their surrender. Akroff, instead of complying, reached for his coat at which time Frewin saw the barrel of a gun protruding from the pocket and this caused Frewin to issue an urgent threat, “Hands up or I will bore a hole in you.”

McDonald related how, as Akroff fumbled for his gun, Frewin shot him. Frewin’s reasoning, McDonald stated, was that on seeing the barrel of the gun he thought “there was a desperate battle going to ensue” so in a pre-emptive move, Frewin immediately shot Akroff. McDonald thus established the fact that it was Frewin, not the defendant nor his dead companion, who had commenced the battle. McDonald related that Frewin, still fearful that Akroff could violently respond to being shot, “filled [Akroff] with bullets.” Having emptied his weapon, Frewin fled the scene with shouts of encouragement for Constable Bailey to continue the violent assault. Belatedly, Defence Counsel Matheson raised the point that because McDonald provided such specific detail, witnesses should have been excluded from the court. Judge McCarthy agreed.

In his address to the Crown’s main challenge, McDonald said, solemnly:

What happened from that point, [Frewin’s exit from the café during the shooting], for a little while we are unable to tell you. Usher cannot tell you because he is dead, Bailey’s cold silent lips can tell us nothing, and Frewin was outside.

McDonald ignored that Bassoff was present inside the café, outside on the sidewalk, and in the street. Witnesses inside the café included Mr. James Allsopp of Bellevue. There is also a nagging and unanswered question about the precise whereabouts of the Bellevue Café’s Chinese proprietor, Mar Ling. As the Crown would demonstrate, there were multiple witnesses to the unfolding of the tragedy in the street. Despite McDonald’s claim, all knowledge of events leading to the tragic shootings did not reside with the ‘cold silent lips’ of the dead.

McDonald ended his opening remarks, planting with the court, and especially the jurors, a savage image of Thomas Bassoff’s violence:

Bassoff exited the café door and Constable Bailey, rose on his buttock . . . and immediately thereupon Bassoff shot and killed him.

This was a brutal image that was calculated to remain seated in the minds of jurors as they listened to witness testimony and when they deliberated on their verdict. Although not germane to the trial, as Bassoff was charged only with killing Bailey, McDonald also related, much to Bassoff’s prejudice, how Bassoff shot Usher as well. McDonald left the jury with the impression that Bassoff was guilty of two murders, not just the murder with which he was charged and for which he now stood trial.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, given the circumstances under which Matheson found himself acting as Bassoff’s Defence Counsel, he made no opening remarks. Thus, the opportunity to rebut McDonald’s narrative of Bassoff as a vicious killer slipped away.

The Crown’s case relied primarily on the testimony of three key witnesses to the events in the street: crime scene investigator Sergeant J.J. Nicholson, shootout participant Constable James Frewin, and Justice of the Peace Joseph Robertson. Supported by a cast of minor witnesses, these three provided the bulk of the evidence concerning Bailey’s murder, aiming to establish Bassoff’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Taking the stand for the Crown, Sgt. Nicholson testified that his investigation revealed chaotic violence inside the Bellevue Café, which then spilled onto Front Street. He identified bullet holes in the north, west, and east walls of the café booth where Bassoff and Akroff had been seated. Those in the west wall likely resulted from Frewin shooting Akroff.

Nicholson also discovered blood splattered on the east wall near the floor, likely from the leg wound Bassoff sustained when he grabbed Usher’s pistol barrel and forced it downward. He concluded that at least six bullets were fired inside the booth and three more outside it but still within the café. However, he provided no explanation as to who—Frewin, Bailey, Usher, Akroff, or Bassoff—had fired them. His testimony also failed to account for any bullets in George Akroff’s body or the bodies of the two slain officers.

Nicholson placed several bullets and shell casings in evidence but did not specify where all were found. Some were discovered in the street and could easily have originated elsewhere and from a different event, although this possibility went unremarked. It appears that no chain of custody protocol to preserve the integrity of the artifact evidence and the crime scene was attempted. Equally noteworthy, Nicholson began his investigation on August 14, eight days following the shootout.

The most significant ballistic evidence for Bassoff’s defence was the bullet fragments extracted from Constable Bailey’s skull during the postmortem. Nicholson identified the bullet as a .32-calibre explosive round, commonly known as a ‘dum-dum,’ and stated that it had been fired from a Mauser pistol.

A dum-dum bullet is designed to expand or flatten upon impact with bone or cartilage, causing extensive internal damage and a larger exit wound. In Bailey’s case, the bullet fragmented upon impact, sending lethal shards tumbling through his skull and shredding his brain. Inspector J.D. Nicholson confirmed that the fatal round came from a Mauser.

As part of his investigation, Nicholson had hired local photographer Arthur J. Kelly to photograph the crime scene and these photos were entered in evidence. The photos depicted Bellevue’s Front Street and included the Bellevue Café and proximate buildings as well as the café interior including the curtained booth. One photograph, exhibit 4, a staged re-enactment of Constable Bailey’s shooting, was especially noteworthy. The photo depicts Mr. George Cantilini [Cantilino?], representing Bassoff, standing in the doorway of the Bellevue Café with the prone figures of two local children, representing Bailey and Usher, lying on the sidewalk. Cantilino has his right hand positioned to mock holding a pistol aimed at the young boy representing Constable Bailey. The photograph with the caption, “Illustrating how Bassoff appeared when shooting Bailey dead,” was a visual image that painted Bassoff as a gangster killer.

When Defence Counsel Matheson cross-examined Kelly he merely sought to guarantee the accuracy of the photos depicting the buildings, the restaurant booth, and the various bullet holes that had been shown. Inexplicably, he entirely neglected, or missed the significance of exhibit 4, arguably the most prejudicial evidence of the trial so far. Matheson’s questions to Kelly on this photo were cursory at best.

Matheson: What is that (indicating)?

Kelly: That is a photograph of a part of the front of this Bellevue Café which . . . with some figures there, the boys are placed there to represent individuals.

Matheson: They are placed there in that way?

Kelly: Yes sir they were placed there.

Matheson: And who is the man?

Kelly: The man is Mr. Contilini.

Why Matheson thought the photograph unworthy of challenge is confounding. The photo firmly planted with the jurors the Crown’s contention that Bassoff had engaged in a sustained and deliberate deadly assault upon two helpless police officers. A clear association between Bassoff and the bullets and shells from the scene had eluded the Crown. In fact, no association between the two had even been attempted. The photo, however, damningly declared Bassoff to be Bailey’s killer and, inadvertently, also Usher’s. Yet Matheson, in merely requiring Kelly to clarify details left the Crown’s weak case unchallenged.

As a police participant in the shootout, Constable James Frewin was likely the Crown’s most anticipated witness. On the stand, he reiterated his now well-known version of the events. As McDonald began his questioning, he had Frewin confirm that both Constable Bailey and Corporal Usher were in uniform but made no mention that Frewin himself was dressed in civilian clothing.

Frewin testified that upon first entering the Bellevue Café alone, he “walked up and down inside the restaurant several times looking inside the booth and I noticed . . . two men sitting evidently eating their dinner.” Despite admitting uncertainty about their identities, he found them “suspicious” and relayed his concerns to Usher.

At the Preliminary Inquiry, Frewin admitted that he and Usher never discussed alternative strategies for making the arrest, nor did they devise contingency plans in case anything went wrong. When they brandished their weapons and entered through the café’s front door, the outcome was left entirely to impulse and fate.

Inside, Frewin and Usher moved into the café booth, where Frewin testified that he “put [his] gun in Akroff’s face and said, ‘Hands up, we are police officers, and we want you.’” However, whether Frewin actually identified himself is disputed.

Akroff responded with a mumble: “What’s the matter, what’s the matter[?]” As Frewin watched, Akroff appeared to fumble for something at his side, prompting Frewin to issue a blunt threat: “All right, put your hands up, or I will bore a hole through you.”

Telling the court that Akroff was reaching for the muzzle of a revolver protruding from his coat pocket, Frewin stated, “I then saw that this man was desperate and that he meant business and I knew that I had to shoot quick.” Frewin fired; “I hit him because he fell back into the corner, I hit him in the vicinity of the neck [or] shoulder … I then … fired several more shots into him.” Akroff instinctively placed his hands over his face in a futile effort to protect himself while Frewin emptied his magazine into the already-wounded man. Even though Akroff had collapsed into the corner, Frewin, firmly in the grip of full-on panic, continued shooting. He was vaguely aware that Corporal Usher was also engaged in a shooting struggle with Bassoff.

Alarmed by the sound of repetitive gunshots, Constable Bailey rushed from the back door and through the kitchen to the booth. Frewin claimed that as he was holding an empty revolver he backed away while shouting at Bailey to ‘shoot’. He then made a headlong dash outside to draw his police issue .38. By placing emphasis on his empty revolver, Frewin distracted attention from the fact that he was still armed with his fully loaded service weapon. Frewin was never asked and did not offer any convincing explanation for why he felt it necessary to abandon the café while still in a position to render assistance to his two comrades now fully embroiled in the life and death struggle which he had initiated.

With revolver shots resounding from inside the café Frewin peered from around the corner and witnessed a terrifying drama, “I next saw Corporal Usher fall or drop down on the doorstep of the café with the blood rushing out of his head.” Frewin continued, “He [Usher] no sooner fell than Constable Bailey came rushing over his body and fell on the sidewalk a few feet away.” Witnessing the fall of his two fellow officers numbed him with shock. Frewin admitted to being dazed, “I do not seem to really know what was happening at this period.”

Frewin had reported on at least two previous occasions that, at this time, he saw blood issuing from Bailey’s head. Now, at trial, he testified that when Bailey fell on the sidewalk, he had yet to be ‘shot dead’. This significant change in his recollection of the sequence of events that he presented to the court, fully placed the blame for Bailey’s death on Bassoff. Frewin’s previous statements had suggested the possibility that Bailey’s single death wound was delivered inside the café. That being the case, it would have been impossible to blame Bassoff for Bailey’s death with any certainty.

Frewin remained in his bewildered state until he was jolted partly to his senses by a man who rushed at him with the news that Bassoff was running away. Still very much confused, however, he gave the man his loaded weapon leaving himself unarmed. For a police officer embroiled in violent struggle that called for studied calmness and firm and deliberate response in the interests of public safety, there is no doubt that Frewin’s was an entirely inappropriate response to this emergency.

With the opening afforded by Frewin’s testimony regarding his state of mind, Crown Counsel McDonald made a brief attempt to connect Frewin’s unexpected mental disorientation to his World War I service. Asked by McDonald if he had suffered battlefield trauma, Frewin responded in the negative and closed this avenue of approach as a potential explanation for his erratic behaviour.

Rising to cross-examine Frewin, Matheson pressed him on why he did not attempt to formally arrest Akroff by placing his hand on him rather than shoot. Frewin responded, “I knew they were dangerous characters,” and not to be handled in that way. By shooting Akroff in a panic response, however, Frewin revealed himself to be emotionally on edge and professionally out of his depth. At the time of the encounter Akroff and Bassoff were only suspects, and Frewin had neither confirmed they were the train robbers nor dangerous. Frewin’s ill-considered and hasty attack on Akroff was ultimately the cause for the deaths of Bailey, Usher, and Akroff.

Frewin’s conclusion that the suspects were dangerous enough to warrant extreme measures led Matheson to question why he had failed to summon additional assistance. Frewin admitted that another Mounted Police officer was nearby—possibly Usher’s colleague, Officer Cropper—but claimed he feared that Akroff and Bassoff would vanish if he delayed.

Although the court did not challenge this explanation, it was hardly convincing. Bassoff and Akroff had been located and could have been placed under surveillance. Five days had passed since the train robbery, yet they had shown no urgency in leaving the area.

Matheson suggested that Frewin’s actions were influenced by an irrational fear—one fueled by sensationalized newspaper reports about the bandits and their weapons—which led to his flawed attempt at apprehending them. Matheson’s theory should not be dismissed.

With a few exceptions, Matheson’s cross-examination focused on having Frewin confirm mundane details. At times, however, he raised points such as to give the impression that he was on the cusp of mounting a vigorous attack on Frewin’s credibility.

Matheson: Is there any possibility that after you drew that revolver when you got out that you may have taken a shot at. The first man that came out?

Frewin: That I took any shot?

Matheson: Yes, that you immediately did take a shot. It does not seem to be very clear yet?

Frewin: I never fired any shot I know that by the cartridges that were in my revolver.[sic]

Matheson next examined Frewin’s inquest statement: “I next saw what I thought to be Constable Bailey … fall headlong outside the doorway, the blood rushing out of his head.” At that moment, Frewin believed both officers were dead. “I took it for granted that they were shot dead, you see—they were shot in the head.” Frewin admitted that the sight left him dazed, describing how “a kind of film seemed to come over my eyes.” In the chaotic moments that followed, he did not see either Akroff or Bassoff leave the Bellevue Café or fire their weapons.

Notably, Frewin also insisted that once outside the café, he did not fire his second gun. However, as will be discussed, this claim conflicts with Justice of the Peace Joseph Robertson’s testimony. The likelihood that Frewin did, in fact, use his weapon raises significant doubts about both his credibility and the true cause of one or more of Usher’s wounds.

Frewin’s behaviour while attempting to make the arrest in the Bellevue Café was indicative of a man whose composure had collapsed. He abandoned his comrades while they faced mortal danger and when, by his own admission, he still possessed a fully loaded weapon. That second weapon might have had a significant impact, even possibly preventing the deaths of his fellow officers had he brought it into play inside the café. Frewin was never made to justify, in court or elsewhere, his decision to shoot it out with Akroff and Bassoff rather than attempt to find a way to ensure the two bandits were peaceably apprehended.

If Constable James Frewin was the Crown’s most anticipated witness, there is no doubt that Justice of the Peace Joseph Robertson was its most significant. Robertson repeated another adapted version of his now well-worn narrative of how Usher and Bailey became hapless victims to Bassoff’s cruelty.

Viewing from across the street, Robertson recalled that both Bailey and Usher backed towards the café doorway in a posture to suggest they were firing their weapons. As Usher exited amid the gunfire, he collapsed and came to rest with his head on the doorstep. Bailey, with his attention fully focused on the armed bandits, backed out the door, stumbled over Usher, fell hard to the sidewalk and hit his head becoming mentally numbed from the blow.

As Robertson stood frozen, transfixed by the plight of the two fallen officers, a badly wounded Akroff emerged from the café, clutching his Mauser revolver. Stumbling over Usher’s prone body, he made his way outside. According to Robertson’s testimony, Akroff leaned against the wall for support before staggering forward another 25 to 30 feet and collapsing. Notably, Robertson did not testify to seeing Akroff fire his weapon.

Robertson’s attention then shifted to Bassoff, who, in his words, exited the café “with a gun in each hand and his head looking from one direction to the other.” Bassoff spotted Bailey, who by this time was beginning to regain consciousness. As Bailey pushed himself up from the sidewalk, his head rose almost directly in front of the gun Bassoff held in his right hand.

Matheson: Where were you standing when all this occurred?

Robertson: Thirty feet away about.

Matheson: You could see the whole thing?

Robertson: Certainly and his [Bailey’s] head came up practically to the point of the gun and Bassoff saw that this man was recovering and pulled the trigger and Bailey he fell dead.

Matheson: Then what happened?

Robertson: Usher made a movement . . . to raise himself from off the ground with two hands flat and in rising Bassoff saw him and turned the gun, this gun which he had in his left hand he turned it on Usher and fired into his head.”

For Robertson, the horror was not yet over. He claimed that after brutally executing both Bailey and Usher, Bassoff turned his sights on him, standing “in the middle of the street.” At this point, Robertson’s account seemed to drift into exaggeration, as he became defensive about his actions. He described Bassoff as “feeling the triggers of his guns” and, concluding that Bassoff’s weapons were now empty, suggested that his actions were mere bravado.

“Bassoff,” he testified, “turned the two guns on me like this (indicating). His [weapon] was a little bigger than mine, and I moved across the road. But mind you, I didn’t run—some people think I might have….” Seeking cover behind a telephone pole, Robertson fired two or three quick shots at Bassoff with his small .22-calibre pistol, which, he claimed, prompted Bassoff to flee. With the immediate danger seemingly over, Robertson rushed to check on Akroff and then Bailey. He found Akroff already dead. Bailey, he noted, “was dead with a bullet wound in his head and his hair full of blood.”

Robertson’s positive identification of Bassoff as Bailey’s killer was crucial to the Crown’s case.

With his cross-examination, Matheson questioned both Robertson’s recall and his integrity. Matheson pressed Robertson on whether he assisted the police with their plans to make the arrest and he answered in the affirmative. Recall that when Frewin was asked this, he denied that Robertson helped. Further, Matheson attempted to cast doubt on Robertson’s bravery and thereby, perhaps, cast his testimony into ill-repute. Having learned that when the shooting broke out Robertson apparently initially stood his ground in the street Matheson probed:

Matheson: Having more wisdom or perhaps knowing the trouble better than you did he [Frewin] took shelter and you were standing like a brave man at this time in the middle of the street?

Robertson: Or like a fool just whichever way you like to put it, call it a brave man if you like I am not particular.

Matheson: But you were in the middle of the street.

Robertson: Yes.

Matheson: And you stayed there until Bailey and Usher came out together and then Akroff came out the fellow who died?

Robertson: Yes.

Matheson: Until Bassoff came out and emptied his two guns?

Robertson: Yes.

Matheson: And then when he threw [pointed] his guns in your direction you moved away?

Robertson: Yes.

Matheson: And you did nothing to protect yourself as you say, either from a lack of appreciation of the danger or else you braved the danger?

Robertson: Yes.

This line of questioning may have been a misstep on Matheson’s part. In attempting to undermine Robertson and extract details, he inadvertently shifted focus to Bassoff’s actions—potentially exaggerating his culpability, perhaps even erroneously. Matheson, for example, remarked that Bassoff left the café and “emptied his two guns . . . [the] two big revolvers he had?” By emphasizing Bassoff’s use of firearms and drawing attention to their size, Matheson reinforced the perception of him as violent—hardly a strategy aligned with securing his best possible defence.

During cross-examination, Matheson asked Robertson to confirm whether he had seen Frewin leave the café. He then pressed him on how many guns Frewin had carried, to which Robertson firmly stated only one. He also confirmed that Frewin was seen holding the weapon at least once in a position suitable for firing.

Yet, Frewin had testified that when he exited the café, he held a gun in each hand. Clearly, Robertson’s and Frewin’s testimonies were in direct conflict.