WARNING: This story contains disturbing details. Reader discretion is advised.
A man who violently sexually assaulted two women, killing one and leaving the other for dead four decades ago has had his day parole reinstated.
Kelly James Toop, 64, was granted day parole in June but had his release privileges suspended in October after a halfway house staffer accused him of following and photographing a woman and allegations he made sexual comments to women in a class he was taking.
His case managers subsequently found pornography websites open on his phone, a violation of his release conditions.
Toop is serving a life sentence for the 1980 first-degree murder of Suzanne Seto, a 29-year-old real estate worker. Toop broke into her Duncan hotel room, sexually assaulted her for hours, then took her to a wooded area where he dropped a cement block on her head.
He is also serving a concurrent life sentence for sexual assault and attempted murder of another woman in Williams Lake who had given him a ride in her vehicle. Toop beat her, sexually assaulted her for hours, then hit her in the head with a tire iron and left her for dead. She survived, and during the subsequent investigation, police tied Toop to Seto’s murder as well.
He was granted day parole in June, after officials reported “measurable and observable behavioural changes” that could reduce his risk, and released into a halfway house.
Parole board documents note he had completed several correctional programs, including for sex offenders and substance use, and was rated to have a “moderate” ability to manage his risk factors.
According to the parole board decision, Toop’s release was suspended after his case management team confronted him on Oct. 4 with allegations he had followed and photographed a woman and made inappropriate sexual comments to classmates.
When they reviewed his phone, they found about 20 pornography websites had been accessed, several of which were still open in tabs on his browser.
Toop was returned to prison, but in a decision dated Dec. 30, the parole board appears to have accepted his explanations for the incidents.
With regards to the woman he allegedly photographed, the board concluded, “the photograph seems to be a screen capture of a video” he recorded near the halfway house, which he subsequently deleted because he didn’t remember why he took it.
“You related that you did not follow or photograph a woman who was walking near the (halfway house). You added that you take pictures and as you have bad eyesight, including glaucoma, you do have a tendency of turning your camera at different angles and positions as a corrective measure,” it stated.
“The Board finds credible your assertion that you did not follow or photograph the woman.”
The parole board also said it “attributes weight” to his denial that he had made inappropriate sexual comments to female classmates. Toop claimed that he had responded to the women’s flirtations by saying he would have been interested if he was 30 years younger.
The board also said it “attributes weight” to his claim he did not understand how the porn websites came to be on his phone, and his denial he had deliberately accessed them.
Toop claimed they could have been the result of clicking on pop-up ads.
The board noted that he had willingly handed over his phone and had made no effort to delete the tabs when his case managers asked for the device.
The parole board’s decision to reinstate Toop’s day parole came despite a recommendation by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) that his parole be revoked.
The CSC argued “a return to the institution is necessary for (Toop) to further develop your clinical tools, engage in introspective work on the circumstances that led to the suspension of your release and create a release plan that can better manage the risk that you represent in the community.”
It also came despite the board’s own acknowledgement that his “diagnoses of an antisocial personality disorder and sexual disorder (rape, sadism)” along with the “the severity and brutality of your offences and your admission to the Board that you would have continued offending had you not been caught” weighed in favour of “extreme caution” in his case.
Toop’s victims’ families also opposed his release, and his halfway house said it would reject his candidacy if he was released.
Toop himself told the parole board that if released he wanted to focus on his relationship with his partner, resume his correctional program and try to find work.
He also said if released, he would seek out a flip phone to “avoid ambiguity” about its use.
The parole board ultimately concluded that there were enough controls in place if he were to be released back to a halfway house to “ensure that any deterioration” of his behaviour was caught quickly, and his release conditions were modified to include a requirement he not purge any data from his phone.
Toop’s other release conditions include no contact with victims, not to drink or consume drugs, not to access pornography and to report all relationships to his parole supervisor.