Twenty-five years after the brutal double slaying that shocked a quiet community, and after almost 23 years in prison, Derik Lord continues to maintain his innocence.
Lord was one of three teens convicted in the killing of his friend's mother and grandmother in a murder-for-hire inheritance plot in Tsawwassen nearly a quarter-century ago.
According to police at the time, Lord and friend David Muir were hired by Darren Huenemann to kill his mother and grandmother, Sharon Huenemann and Doris Leatherbarrow, so he could get his multi-milliondollar inheritance. The three teens lived in Saanich at the time and at trial the prosecution argued that on the day of the murders, Oct. 5, 1990, Huenemann and his girlfriend dropped Lord and Muir off at the ferry terminal. The pair then went to Leatherbarrow's Tsawwassen home and, after being invited in for dinner by the two women, bludgeoned and stabbed them to death. The two teens then took the ferry home and were picked up by Huenemann and his girlfriend.
Following an investigation, all three were arrested, tried and convicted. Lord began serving his sentence on June 3, 1992.
Lord and Muir were both sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 10 years. Huenemann received a life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years.
After his conviction, Muir, who had pleaded not guilty at trial, admitted his role in the murders and has been out on parole for over a decade. He was granted day parole in April 2002 and full parole a year later.
Now in his early 40s, Lord has never changed his story, continues to insist he is innocent and remains behind bars at the Matsqui Institution in Abbotsford.
"I maintain that I had no involvement in the offence," Lord told the Parole Board of Canada at his latest parole hearing last week.
Lord reiterated his version of events that day when questioned by parole board member Stuart Whitley. He said Huenemann dropped the
two teens off in downtown Victoria after school where they shopped before being picked up at 8:30 p.m. Lord said the three of them went to his house where Muir picked up his bike and went home. He said he went out again with Huenemann, returning home around 10 p.m. He said a reported sighting on a ferry that night was a case of mistaken identity and none of them were involved in the murder, adding he has his suspicions about who killed the two women and why Muir changed his story after the two were convicted.
"I think he's fabricated things to help himself out."
Inmates who are eligible for parole have their status automatically reviewed by the board every two years. They can also reapply on an annual basis.
The board does not, however, deal with the question of innocence or guilt. It only assesses an inmate's risk of re-offending if released.
This time, parole board members were considering Lord for full parole, day parole and escorted temporary absences, which he has undertaken on 10 previous occasions.
The two-man panel granted the continuation of escorted absences, but denied day and full parole.
Lord's lawyer, Jason Gratl, who took part in last week's hearing, said his client plans on applying for unescorted temporary absences.
Gratl, who helped Robert Latimer, the Saskatchewan man convicted of seconddegree
murder in the 1993 death of his severely disabled daughter, in his bid for parole, was hired by the Lord family a few years ago after, he said, a former warden told Lord he would never get out of prison unless he confessed to the murders. Lord was moved from a minimumsecurity institution back to medium-security and had other privileges revoked.
"The institution is geared up to get confessions out of people," Gratl said during a break in Lord's parole hearing last Thursday.
He said there is no statutory or legal requirement to admit guilt in order to be paroled from prison; however, it can effect how quickly an inmate is moved through the system.
"Typically, at a very minimum, it slows your access to parole," he said. "It's at a very high cost to maintaining innocence." Local lawyer and mediator Ulf Ottho, who served six years on the parole board, said the main criteria the board looks at when considering some form of parole is whether releasing the inmate would pose an undue risk to the community.
He said the parole board has two main priorities - protection of the public and rehabilitation of the inmate.
Ottho, who served on the board between 2007 and 2013, was never involved in any of Lord's parole hearings and would not comment on his case. He did, however, say that a continued denial of guilt does not necessarily preclude an inmate from parole, but could be seen as a stumbling block.
"Where it is clear that the conviction is a valid one, we have to start from a fact that the crime was committed," he said. "Denial of guilt is seen as an indication that the correction that was applied to the offender has been ineffective."
Lord's parole officer and the First Nations' elders he has been working with at the prison all say he has made much progress in recent years. He has participated in a number of programs offered through the institution, committed to completing his Grade 12 education and taken on a mentorship role with new inmates.
"It's pretty clear that Mr. Lord is ready, willing and able to take some steps forward," Gratl told the parole board hearing.
For his part, Lord acknowledges that his stance has put him in a unique situation.
"This is a horrible thing and I understand that my position makes it difficult ... to move forward," he told the hearing before the panel broke to make a decision.
"I would ask to be considered to start moving forward ... to start working back into the community."
In handing down the decision last Thursday, Whitely said the board recognized Lord's progress and his strong family support - his wife and mother were at the hearing - however because the board does not have the benefit of any insight into the crime it is unable to safely conclude at this time that he would be at a minimum risk to the community if released.
