Chapters
Shownotes Transcript
Hey, it's Nancy. Before we begin today, I just wanted to let you know that you can listen to Crime Beat early and ad-free on Amazon Music, included with Prime. A listener's note. The following episode contains coarse language, adult themes, and content of a violent and disturbing nature and may not be suitable for everyone. Listener discretion is advised.
One of the great things about living in Canada is having the freedom to speak freely, express opinions, and live or work where you want to. You can believe in any religion or no religion. These are fundamental freedoms protected under the Constitution. They're the rights of every individual.
There are also choices you have when you become a parent. Decisions like sending your kids to school or homeschooling them. You have the choice on how to raise your kids, like the language they speak or the foods they eat. But when do those rights end? It's kind of shocking that we would have to deal with a case such as this.
It's a question of degree. So draw a line and you say, this is what a normal, prudent individual would do in all of the circumstances. And then as you go along the line, you're going to hit a point which is just a departure from what a normal parent would do.
I'm Nancy Hixt, a crime reporter for Global News. Today on Crime Beat, I want to focus on the decisions parents make, and more specifically, on the moment a choice crosses the line. This is the story of John Clark. In the fall of 2013, a little boy was taken to a Calgary hospital by his parents. The 14-month-old child was in severe medical distress.
Soon after, he was transferred by ambulance to a nearby children's hospital, where he suffered a cardiac arrest. His case has left seasoned medical experts too traumatized to relive it. So today, newly retired Calgary police detective Mike Cavilla is going to give this child a voice.
In this case, he wasn't the lead investigator. He's speaking on behalf of veteran detective Lee Trite. Detective Trite asked that I step in for him on this file, even though he was the primary investigator, because Detective Trite felt it important for this case to be heard and the facts to be heard so that voice was given to little John and what happened to him.
Myself and six other homicide investigators worked very closely with Lee and we worked as a team on this file as we always do. But it's important to note that Detective Trite did control the speed, the flow and the investigative techniques employed in this investigation.
and did a great job. Detective Mike Kavila served with the Calgary Police Service for nearly 25 years. You'll remember him from the very first episode of Crime Beat. He was the primary investigator on the Mika Jordan case. He was recently awarded the Order of Merit of Police Forces by the Canadian Governor General that recognized his policing career of exceptional service.
If you're a regular listener of this podcast, you know to expect a story about a crime that's been committed with a deep focus on the victims and the impact of that crime. Sometimes they're high-profile cases, and sometimes they're cases that offer insight into aspects of the law that people aren't as familiar with, like today's story.
At this point, I would normally take you back to go through childhood memories of the people involved in a story and let you know about the life of a person before they were impacted by crime. I'd love to be able to do that in this case, to help paint a picture of who John Clark was and the family he came from. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of information, but I will share what I can.
John Wyatt Clark was born on September 21st of 2012. His parents, Jeremy and Jennifer Clark, opted for a home birth. Jeremy previously worked in construction, and Jennifer was a schoolteacher. But in November of 2012, both were unemployed and stayed home full-time with John. They were both in their mid-30s at that time and lived in a duplex in north-central Calgary.
A look at their home revealed it was well-stocked with healthy, whole foods, supplements, and numerous books on parenting and health. There were appropriate safety measures in place for young children, including childproof locks on cupboards, and other potentially harmful substances were stored out of reach. On November 28, 2013, 14-month-old John was taken to hospital.
A nurse on triage at the Foothills Medical Center was first to see the child. She noted his toes were a dark color. He had dry, scaly, and red skin over his body, including his face. She deemed him in need of immediate medical attention and called a doctor to see him right away.
John was at the triage desk, in his mother's arms, when he was first examined by the emergency physician. The doctor said the toddler was pale and appeared somewhat lifeless. His heart rate and temperature were low for a child his age. He carried John to a bed and assembled a team to try to offer medical assistance.
Before I go any further, I need to warn you, the details I'm about to share are really graphic. The doctor observed a rash on John's body, green discharge coming from one of his eyes, and several of his toes were turning black. The physician concluded the boy was critically ill, likely due to an infection, and he was in septic shock, so he could go into cardiac arrest.
John was in dire need of specialized help, so he was rushed to the nearby children's hospital. The emergency room doctor rode with John in the ambulance. The doctor said, without proper treatment, he didn't feel the child would make it. It took just minutes for John to arrive at the children's hospital.
The emergency doctor there said he was pale, had difficulty breathing, and described his toes as almost purple. His vital signs were quite abnormal. Multiple trauma doctors and specialists saw and treated John. That night, he went into cardiac arrest. He was put on IV and placed on a ventilator. Hours later, he went into a second cardiac arrest.
On November 29th, 2013, at 12.47 p.m., less than 24 hours after his parents took him to hospital, John was declared dead. What led to this little boy's death? Police were called. Doctors felt there were red flags. Something didn't add up.
Child abuse detectives started the investigation. And then, after John passed away, the homicide unit took over. So right after John died at 1247, we had a briefing shortly after 1 o'clock, like 1.10. And that was at the Alberta Children's Hospital. We did our briefing there with child abuse and the homicide unit.
So child abuse briefed us on what they had learned so far, both from interviews and from the medical doctors. And it was the opinion that the child had, from the medical viewpoint, that the child had been neglected. That same afternoon, Jeremy and Jennifer Clark's home was sealed off until a search warrant could be obtained.
Mike Cavilla describes what police later found during their search. Nothing really stood out other than the fact that there was multiple books and magazines dealing with health care and nutrition. Numerous items were seized and numerous photographs were taken. One of the items seized was an HP laptop computer device.
which would prove to be the contents of which proved to be important following a forensic examination down the road in the investigation. Just hours after John died, his parents were interviewed by police. On November 29th, in the evening, I conducted a two and a half hour interview with the biological father of John, Jeremy Clark. And during this interview,
He revealed to me quite a bit of information, background as to his family, background as to the medical conditions that John had been dealing with since early on, and well as some of the methods that they used to treat his eczema. Jeremy stated that John had started getting eczema around the age of three months old.
very early on and this conditions worsened and then got better worsened got better over the next 11 months Jeremy by his own admission said that he did a lot of research on the internet in relation to different creams which he could use for eczema
Jeremy also talked about John's diet, that he was mostly breastfed in the early months, and that they had recently tried to introduce foods to him like sweet potatoes, green beans, and other mash foods, and that John was generally a pretty good eater. When talking about the days, though, prior to bringing John to the hospital, Jeremy was a little upset.
less detailed and a little bit more evasive in relation to what the family was eating for meals and what John was eating. In relation to the toast, Jeremy stated that John started to have what he called a little black spot on his right foot. And Jennifer had noticed it as well while giving him a bath. Now,
It's interesting that Jeremy says, when I asked him, "When did you notice this?" He says, "It was the day that we brought John into the hospital, November 28th." So, did you notice it before? No. Okay. Bit of a red flag there. One thing police always try to develop, especially in the death of a child, is a timeline.
I'll get more into that timeline in a bit, but the interviews with John Clark's parents were a starting point. Investigators would be looking to confirm if their story matched the evidence gathered in this case. So at the same time I was interviewing Jeremy Clark, Detective Orr was conducting an interview with Jennifer Clark, his wife.
And Jennifer stated a number of things to Detective Orr. That they would feed John sweet potatoes, mixed it with milk, but she had to force feed John a lot because he didn't appear to like eating. Jennifer stated she first noted the purple on his toes about two weeks prior, but that it went away when she put two layers of socks on his feet.
She wouldn't see the black unless you pried his feet apart and that it didn't seem like it was a big deal. There was one significant detail the Clarks revealed during their interviews. John Clark never saw a doctor from the time he was born until the day his parents took him to hospital.
Detective Cavilla said Jeremy told him he wasn't opposed to hospitals. But that John had never been to the hospital before. And that if he could find a herbal remedy, that would be preferable. During the interview, Jeremy did state that his wife Jennifer was reluctant at first to take John to the hospital. She did not want him to lose his toes, even though...
the condition appeared to be serious. Jeremy also said that John had become more irritable in the last two weeks, but that the purple in his toes had gone away. Jeremy also said that the bulk of the black that the doctors were seeing on John's toes had occurred while they were at the hospital. Investigators said Jeremy and Jennifer Clark were cooperative.
Following their interviews, they were free to go. No charges were laid. But the investigation didn't end with those interviews. Detective Trite, during the course of the investigation, sought out several medical experts to examine medical records as well as the autopsy report. And these experts were from various fields. Detective Trite asked them to provide an opinion
as to what the underlying causes of death were, as well as the time frame, the important time frame which these symptoms would have appeared. The reason that Detective Trite did this was done to determine whether or not Jeremy and Jennifer Clark ought to have known to seek medical attention before they did.
It was just over a year later before media were called to police headquarters where a staff sergeant from the homicide unit spoke about the case. The Calgary Police Service has charged the biological parents of a child who died in 2013. An autopsy was conducted on Monday, December 2nd, 2013. Following further tests, the cause of death was determined to be related to malnutrition.
Following a long and complex investigation, the biological parents of the deceased were arrested without incident on Friday, December 12, 2014. Jennifer Clark, 38, and Jeremy Clark, 34, from Calgary, have both been charged with criminal negligence causing death
and failure to provide the necessaries of life. We consulted four experts to help us determine the manner and cause of death. That included infectious disease specialist, neurologist, a dermatologist and a pediatrician and it took time to get the results of their examination. What we can tell you is that the child was suffering from a staph infection that was complicated by malnutrition
and as a result that infection was untreatable and he died within 24 hours of being admitted to the hospital. Under the Criminal Code of Canada, it is a legal requirement for a parent or guardian to provide the necessaries of life. This is defined by the courts as food, shelter, care and medical attention necessary to sustain life and protection from harm.
I need to take a minute to explain a bit more about that charge, failing to provide the necessaries of life.
To do that, I turned to veteran lawyer Markham Silver. He's been practicing law for more than 30 years. He's done both prosecutions and defense work. I was appointed a Queen's Counsel and I'm also a sessional instructor at the University of Calgary Law School where I teach evidence and an advanced criminal justice clinical course as well as advocacy.
Whenever I report on these types of cases, I get messages from people saying I'm mispronouncing the charge, suggesting that it's "necessities of life."
it is in fact failing to provide the necessaries of life. So the charge of failing to provide the necessaries of life is under section 215 of the Criminal Code of Canada. And it is necessaries, not necessities.
The concept is that this isn't something which is like just providing food, although this necessaries of life does include providing things like food, shelter, clothing, medical attention, which is necessary to sustain life. And also there's a duty to protect the individual from harm.
So, necessaries of life doesn't just mean giving a person a peanut butter and jam sandwich. It goes beyond that and it's a much higher thing than just saying, "I'm providing one piece of this." In my 25 years as a journalist, I've only personally seen a handful of people charged with this offense. But all of the cases I've covered involved the death of a child.
However, it is important to note there are other circumstances where this law can be applied.
It can be laid in relation to the care of a child. It can also be laid in respect to elders. It can be laid in respect to someone who is in detention. It can also apply to someone who's bedridden or someone with an illness who requires care. There's three things that you need to prove for this. And this is, again, something that most people don't recognize.
The first step, step one, is to provide evidence that the individual charged was under a legal duty to provide the necessaries of life. So again, this can apply to parents or police or people who have a duty to care for someone else. The second step is you have to prove, or the Crown has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the failure to provide necessaries of life.
So that means that you've got to be able to ascertain what it is that they failed to do because it's a negative thing, right? It's an omission as opposed to a commission. They've done something where they didn't do something. So what exactly have they failed to do? And that's from an objective standpoint.
And that failure has to actually be spelled out. In this case, the Clarks were accused of failing to provide their son, John Clark, with the necessaries of life, specifically medical attention. Three is that the failure to provide those necessaries that you've already found in step two permanently endangered the life of the person in their charge.
And that's also from an objective standpoint. So a reasonable person, in this case, a reasonable parent standing in their shoes would have come to a different decision. I know this is all a bit legalese. And you're probably wondering, especially in the case of parenting, like when a child is sick, when this charge would specifically apply.
So when you see as a parent that what you have done is not resulting in any benefit to the child, at that point, you might be in the position of saying that a reasonably prudent parent would go to the next step and say, I need some professional assistance on this. And that's why this section prevails, because you're under a duty, which we can prove,
And that duty includes the responsibility to ensure that if it's medical attention to save a life, right? Or that's necessary. You have a duty to provide that. And if you can't, then the failure to provide that necessary of life would be the failure to obtain medical treatment when it is required.
And that failure would permanently endanger the individual's life or that there was a substantial risk of endangerment of the person's life. I should also add that Jeremy and Jennifer Clark also faced one count each of criminal negligence causing death. It's a more serious offense and is punishable by a maximum of life in prison. Just days after the Clarks were arrested, they were released from custody.
Now, a judge has granted Jennifer Clark and her husband Jeremy release on $5,000 cash bail each. According to investigators, the couple followed a strict diet. They hold memberships at Central Seventh-Day Adventist Church, but haven't been there in eight to 10 years. Officials say the church is struggling to understand what happened in this case.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church does not abdicate extremes in diet. The health message of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a balanced, nutritional, stable program that's been proven to be so over and over by cutting-edge research. The Adventist Church owns and operates hundreds of hospitals and a university school of medicine. In this case, police say baby John had never seen a doctor. While out on bail, the Clarks are not allowed to be around any kids under the age of 14 without supervision.
In October of 2018, nearly five years after John Clark's death, Jeremy and Jennifer Clark stood trial in front of a jury. It was only then we learned more of the child's history, but details were still limited. As the Clarks raised John without outside medical assistance, his medical history wasn't tracked or recorded in a manner that could be made available to the court.
The jury heard he was born full-term and started out in the 50th percentile for weight and in the 85th percentile for height, which means John Clark was a healthy weight and even a little tall for his age. In contrast, when he died...
John was between the third and fifteenth percentile for weight and below the .1 percentile for height for boys his age, which means he was severely underdeveloped. At 14 months old, he could sit up but was not yet walking or even crawling.
Court heard John had a rash on his skin for most of his short life, which the Clarks believed was eczema. They said it would flare up when he was teething. They described treating the rash with creams, without any beneficial effect. When he was finally taken to hospital, this rash covered 70% of his body.
The prosecution alleged, had the Clarks taken him to hospital, they would have learned it was malnutrition that triggered dermatitis, that led to a staph infection, sepsis, and ultimately John's death. Key evidence in the case came from a search of the Clarks' home and a subsequent forensic examination of their computer.
An expert in data retrieval from computers took the jury through online searches made on the Clark's laptop. On the same day little John was taken to hospital, several searches were made including one for gangrene, cayenne as a treatment, and
and one for can cabbage leaves help gangrene. A day before, a search was made for a natural cure for wet gangrene. The expert testified there were several similar searches made in private search mode. Here's Mike Kavilla with more on the other searches found on the clerk's computer. The forensic analysis showed that the word eczema appeared over 400 times as a Google word searched.
First appearing on May 22nd, 2013. So a full six months prior to John being transported to hospital. During the trial, there were two critical issues. How John presented when he first arrived at hospital, how he looked and how sick he appeared to be, and the actual cause of his death.
The jury heard testimony from a long list of medical professionals, including those who saw and treated John at both hospitals. Several experts also offered opinion evidence on diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of diseases in children.
One specialist in pediatrics, microbiology, immunology, and infectious diseases told court John's platelet count was very low, and the way John presented was most likely sepsis-related. He estimated it would take close to seven days or more to see the evolution of black toes, and said that doesn't happen in a day or two.
He also said, given that John's growth parameters were small and his development milestones not appropriate for his age, he ought to have been seen by a medical doctor much earlier. Here again is former detective Mike Cavilla. So this is not a situation where the child developed these problems overnight or even within days. This was a situation where
According to the medical specialists at the Alberta Children's Hospital, that had been developing for months. And even by their own admission, both Jeremy and Jennifer stated that John had had eczema since the age of three months old, but they had been treating it since that age. But recently things had kind of changed.
A specialist in dermatology told Court the necrosis he exhibited could happen quickly, but that John's hair was unusual and suggested a nutritional deficiency. His skin was flaky, and she noted the discoloration of his toes and that the tissue was starting to separate.
A forensic neuropathologist also gave expert opinion, suggesting John had a small brain, which he attributed to malnutrition. Meanwhile, the accused in this case presented a different story. Jeremy and Jennifer Clark did not testify in their own defense. Monday, Jeremy Clark's lawyer called one witness, the former Alberta chief medical examiner.
Annie Savageau contradicted evidence presented by the prosecution to say John Clark was malnourished and died of a staph infection. Instead, she testified her opinion is he died when he was given too much fluid too quickly in hospital, which she called an overly aggressive correction of sodium.
Court also heard Savageau has a lawsuit pending against the Alberta government for wrongful dismissal and she is not currently licensed to practice medicine in Canada. Basically, the Clarks blamed doctors at the Children's Hospital for John's death. But the prosecution suggested John was already near death before he even began to receive treatment.
In the end, it was up to the jury to decide if Jeremy and Jennifer Clark were innocent or guilty. They convicted the couple of both failing to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing death. Prosecutor Shane Parker spoke to the media following the verdict. He noted John would have been in grade one, having just celebrated his sixth birthday.
He also talked about the defense the couple presented, blaming doctors for John's death. For them to get blamed for his death and wrongly blamed for his death really is a tragedy because they're the heroes in this file. And to portray them as the villains really was quite unfair for their efforts to try and save that 14-month-old baby. The couple was supposed to be sentenced in February, but there was a delay.
I should add, there were a number of delays during the court process. Some were caused when the Clarks changed legal counsel. One court date was consumed by a discussion about a 1920s flapper-style hat Jennifer Clark insisted on wearing even in court. She said she needed it for religious reasons. In February of 2019, the Clarks spoke out for the first time in court.
Jennifer Clark stood in the prisoner's box and said, I feel such a deep sorrow and loss. When death took Johnny from me, I can't explain the depth of the emptiness I felt inside. Jeremy told court, I can never get over the fact that John doesn't get to be a man. He doesn't get to be a teenager riding around on his bike with friends, throwing rocks in the river and stuff.
I approached the Clarks on several occasions, including that day at court. They have declined all requests for interviews. They remained out on bail until June of 2019, nearly six years after John Clark died when they were finally sentenced.
The prosecution argued the Clarks should be sentenced to four to five years in custody, while defense suggested three to eight months would be sufficient. Defense counsel for both Jeremy and Jennifer Clark also argued that the marked and substantial departure of care only extended to the evening of November 27th, when there was a search for Can Cabbage Leaves Cure Gangrene?,
They said evidence prior to the evening of November 27th was insufficient to meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. They said that was a necessary point as extending the duration of the offending conduct would be an aggravating factor.
Defense pointed out that timeline was consistent with the duration put forward by most of the medical professionals at trial for how long it would have taken for John's toes to blacken to the degree seen in the photographs, with the exception of the specialist in pediatrics, microbiology, immunology, and infectious diseases.
You'll recall that expert said, in his opinion, it would have taken seven days for the necrosis to develop to the stage observed at John's death. Jeremy and Jennifer Clark were taken into custody immediately after a judge sentenced them each to 32 months in prison.
Late last year, a jury found the couple guilty of criminal negligence causing death and failing to provide the necessaries of life in the death of their son. In determining the facts of this case, the justice found John died after the Clarks failed to take John for any proper or timely medical attention.
In handing down his sentence, Justice Paul Jeffrey said, "...the Clarks did not by design starve, beat, or otherwise deliberately set out to harm him. They always pursued healthy outcomes, yet their degree of disregard for John's trajectory and their degree of neglect revealed just how misguided and tragically misinformed they were as parents."
The conduct constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent parent. Justice Jeffrey also noted he could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the Clarks' offending conduct, their failure to seek medical treatment, was the sole cause of John's death, rather than the substantial contributing cause.
Jeffrey said he was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that proper and timely medical care for John, while alive, would have accurately identified his condition so that his death would have been avoided. The prosecution said they were disappointed with the sentence. Jennifer Cruz, the co-crown on this case, spoke to me following the sentencing. The severity of this case is,
there needs to be a message sent that parents who make decisions such as the Clarks made, there needs to be a message sent that they simply can't make those decisions to the detriment of their child.
In handing down his sentence, the justice said he was satisfied the Clarks will never repeat their failure. It's very difficult, especially when you know that his parents obviously loved him. So you're balancing that with the law and the criminality of the decisions they made. In February of 2020, eight months into his 32-month sentence, Jeremy Clark applied for day and full parole.
In the written decision, the board stated several times 39-year-old Clark was concerned about speaking about his case with parole officers and the board because of the outstanding appeals. The Clarks filed appeals for both their conviction and sentence.
The board noted Jeremy Clark had no criminal history. This was his first and only offense. And while very serious, they took into consideration the time that passed since John died and the extended time they successfully remained out on bail during the court proceedings. Clark spoke of regret and what he could have done differently, but was again cautious about what and how much he disclosed to the board.
He denied that his religion or belief system had any impact on fears of the medical system or persons of authority. Clark told the board he felt he was a good parent and said, in retrospect, if he could go back, he would have taken his son to a doctor and would not have the regrets that he still has.
While in custody, Clark completed numerous vocational certifications, maintained institutional employment at the Minimum Security Facility, and participated in counseling with a community agency. He told the board he plans to resume his own business doing lawn care and snow removal. Jeremy Clark was granted full parole.
The board said his risk is manageable without any imposed conditions. Jennifer Clark also had no prior criminal history, but she served a lot more time in custody than her husband. She was in prison for nearly a year and a half before she was granted parole.
In the written decision, the board noted her version of events is not consistent with the official version and said she downplayed the severity of John's symptoms. The board also said her pending appeals made her less forthcoming. When she arrived in prison, she continued to maintain doctors erred in treating her son.
She also disputed her case management team's assessment that she faced high levels of abuse and indoctrination during her marriage. Instead, she maintained her relationship with Jeremy Clark was respectful, healthy, and loving. I should add, Jeremy Clark acted as Jennifer's assistant for the hearing.
He spoke to his wife's network of community support and said that things are all taken care of to allow her to start her studies. The board also reviewed and considered a written submission from Jeremy Clark confirming a happy and healthy marital relationship and his continued support for Jennifer. The board said she served her time without incident.
Jennifer Clark completed all programming in her correctional plan, but the board noted she continues to lack insight into the offense. And although she loved her son, the board said her flawed and distorted thinking contributed to his death. She was also found to demonstrate high levels of cognitive distortions and mistrust of the medical community.
but told the board she regrets not getting a family physician involved and acknowledged had she done that, the outcome could have been different. While on parole, she's not allowed to be responsible or in the care of any children under 18 or any vulnerable person, regardless of age, without the prior written consent of her parole supervisor.
Jeremy and Jennifer Clark lost the appeal of their convictions. The Alberta Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed them. As of the release of this podcast, they still plan to appeal their sentences, even though they're already out of prison. I reached out to each of the defense lawyers who have been involved in this case. And this is where it really helps to have media-friendly lawyers.
Both lawyers who are named on the Court of Appeal documents for Jeremy and Jennifer Clark would not comment on the case or reach out to their clients to see if they would comment. In fact, neither would even confirm if they're still on the record for the Clarks. I've also asked the Clarks directly on multiple occasions if they would like to speak to me or give their side of the story.
and they have always declined. I tell you this because I want you to understand I see the value in trying to get both sides and I always put in the effort. But getting that other side doesn't always happen. The devastating impact of the choices made by John Clark's parents are still being felt. Not only by them, but by the community.
Investigators still struggle with this case. Doctors and medical staff involved are still traumatized. The court ruled that John's parents failed him by not taking him to see a doctor before it was too late. So looking back on this case, and I'm speaking now as both a parent and a retired investigator, that this was probably one of the more
Thank you so much for joining me and letting me share John's story.
Crime Beat is written and produced by me, Nancy Hixt, with producer Dila Velasquez. Audio editing and sound design is by Rob Johnston. Special thanks to photographer-editor Danny Lantella for his work on this episode. And thanks to Chris Bassett, the acting VP of National and Network News for Global News.
I would love to have you tell a friend about this podcast, and you can help me share these important stories by rating and reviewing Crime Beat on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. You can find me on Twitter at Nancy Hixt, on Facebook at Nancy Hixt Crime Beat, and I'd love to have you join me for added content on Instagram at nancy.hixt. That's N-A-N-C-Y dot H-I-X-T.
Thanks again for listening. Please join me next time.