BEHIND THE CRIMES: How looking at a pair of eyeglasses helped police focus on a murderer

True crime fan? Go behind the crimes in Ontario. Uncover what clues helped investigators put criminals behind bars and which ones remain elusive to give families closure. This list of curated stories from Metroland's previously published series, Behind the Crime: Solved and Unsolved Cases in Ontario, shines a spotlight on some of the most significant crimes in communities across the province. This story was originally published on May 6, 2021.

It was an horrific scene.

A single mom, brutalized in her own home, a ground-level apartment in the south-west corner of Collingwood.

In 1989, investigators had little to go on to find Debbie Timlock's murderer, other than a squashed tomato outside the kitchen window through which her attacker had entered her apartment, and a pair of eyeglasses found down the hall from where her body was discovered by police.

Timlock had been sexually assaulted and stabbed twice, but had just enough strength to reach her phone and call for help.

The blood loss was too severe and she succumbed to her injuries within minutes of phoning police.

Investigators would spend several weeks chasing leads on potential suspects, eventually landing on James Brown, a neighbour of Timlock's, who she had told friends had been making advances toward her. Brown also had a lengthy record for assaults and break and enters.

The murder hit the community pretty hard, retired Collingwood Police Service officer Fred Stephenson told Simcoe.com in 2015, and even more so after Brown's arrest.

I think the town was pretty shook up about the situation, and even after the arrest they were quite surprised it was a local," said Stephenson, who was the first officer on the scene that rainy June night.

During his interrogation, Brown claimed to investigators that he'd been mugged the night Timlock was murdered, rendered senseless and had been driven out of town.

But one of the things that stuck out for investigators was that in mugshots from previous arrests, Brown wore glasses similar to the ones found at the crime scene. When presented with the glasses, Brown denied they were his.

A search of his car turned up a pair of sneakers that had the same pattern on their soles as what had been observed imprinted on the squashed tomato.

But given that the shoes were not uncommon, to bolster the case against Brown officers turned to Dr. Graham Strong, at the time the associate professor at the University of Waterloo's School of Optometry.

It was only a couple of years earlier that Strong had been called in to help out with a murder case in North Bay - his first foray into forensic ophthalmology.

Investigators contacted Strong, and I realized there might be some information I could provide them with - and it stemmed from there," Strong, now a Distinguished Professor Emeritus with the university, told Simcoe.com.

In both cases, Strong used his skills as a critical observer.

One of the things that is routine if you're an optometrist, or involved in dispensing activities - particularly with students - is you develop a critical eye about problems, mistakes, issues with pairs of glasses so you can use it as a teaching opportunity and you can correct anything that is a defect," he said. Using those skills, bringing it to bear on eyeglasses that are in evidence, there may be something unique you can see about that evidence that may not have occurred to other people."

In Brown's case, Strong did not have much to go on.

There was no dispensing origin for Brown's eyeglasses, or a record of eyeglasses purchased by Brown that were similar to the ones found near the victim.

As with any investigation, he had to determine a way to derive data from what little he had at hand - the eyeglasses and the mugshots - that could be used for an analysis.

All it took was a little mathematics.

For instance, when an individual gets eyeglasses, a common measurement is the distance between the eyes - the interpupillary distance - in order to determine the optical centre. One method to do that is to shine a light in the eye to see where the light reflection is in the cornea of either eye, and measure the distance.

However, in the case of Brown's mugshots, he was photographed at an angle - requiring Brown to employ some trigonometry in order to convert physical measurements from the photograph into real-life measurements that could then be compared to corresponding measurements from the real-life eyeglasses.

The glasses, both the ones in the photograph and the ones in evidence, were poorly made, and the lenses were uneven - likely as a result of grinding out a chipped area.

All those things create a level of uniqueness for the pair of eyeglasses, both in the photograph and in evidence," Strong said. When you start to compile data where you have 20 points of unique deviation, the odds of there being two different pairs of eyeglasses with those identical imperfections becomes astronomical."

On that evidence, along with that of the shoes and matching the sole to the imprint on the tomato, Brown was arrested and charged with murder. He was later convicted and on Jan. 27, 1992, sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years.

During the trial, Brown denied his guilt. He applied unsuccessfully for parole in 2010 under the faint hope" clause. It was at that time, in a judicial review, Brown admitted to killing Timlock.

Brown was granted full parole in 2019.

Strong said he approaches all the cases he consults on - work he does pro bono - with a presumption of innocence for the accused.

Your job is to find information that is exculpatory for the accused - in this case, these glasses can't belong to this person, or is there information that leads to their exoneration?" he said. When you get to a point where you're no longer able to support that premise, then you have to consider the opposite is true, and compile the information so that it can be used by the court."

DNA analysis has overtaken some of his work. Today it would be a relatively simple thing to obtain DNA material from an item, particularly eyeglasses with a set of nosepads.

It's a lot easier and less speculative for a jury," Strong said. With DNA, you'd never have anything like this Brown case because there would be plenty of genetic material available to do an analysis."

However, he said, some of the techniques that he has used on cases have shown up in film and TV drama series; Strong is a bit of a fan of shows such as CSI.

I think they're mind-settling," he said.

But are they elements drawn from his work?

That would be over flattering," he said with a laugh.

Over the years, he has picked and chosen what cases he would get involved in, avoiding those that could be personally upsetting.

However, there are ones, such as Timlock's murder, that he feels an obligation to provide his expertise.

I was so sympathetic - you hear about the victim ... you realize this is an eternally devastating event for people and it's so important that they get some kind of fair treatment and fair adjudication of the situation," he said. I felt it (my evidence) was compelling, and I think the outcome was a legitimate one."

In other cases he has found evidence that was helpful for the defence, and I'm equally empathetic for people who are potentially wrongly accused - they, too, deserve a fair break.

That's why, in my fairly naive and rudimentary approach, I always try to be sure that I'm looking at it objectively, trying to find innocence as opposed to trying to find guilt," he said. I steel myself every time I do something to make sure I'm on the right path, that I've got my head in the right place to be looking at it, no preconception, that I'm trying to go at it truthfully, rigorously, and honestly to help out whoever it helps."