Monday, July 24, 2017

Author talk - Sep. 26, 7 p.m. - Yorkville Public Library

Author talk and book signing -
Tue Sep 26, 2017 - 7:00 p.m.

Yorkville Public Library

22 Yorkville Avenue, 
Toronto, ON
M4W 1L4

416-393-7660

Author talk - Sep. 21, 6:30 pm - Dawes Road Public Library

Author talk and book signing
Thursday, Sep 21, 2017 - 6:30 p.m.

Dawes Road Public Library

416 Dawes Road, Toronto, ON  
M4B 2E8  
416-396-3820

Friday, July 7, 2017

On the 100th anniversary of Tom Thomson's disappearance

On July 8, 1917 - 100 years ago - Canadian painter Tom Thomson disappeared while canoeing in Ontario's Algonquin Park. He was never seen alive again. While then relatively unknown as an artist, his reputation grew significantly after his death. In 1920, his friends and peers went on to found the Group of Seven, arguably Canada's most famous cultural point of reference. The Group members cited Thomson's influence on their work, and gave him credit for inspiring their interest the landscape of Ontario's Canadian Shield. 

As Thomson's reputation grew, so did interest in his life, and particularly, in his death. Since the 1970s, a significant body of writing has been devoted to exploring Thomson's disappearance and demise. These works have offered arguments based on evidence, hearsay, speculation, and sometimes even outright fictions regarding what happened to Thomson in July 1917. While some have served to expand our knowledge, others have served to further confuse our understanding of what happened to Tom Thomson 100 years ago.

 

 

Myths have displaced the facts


When beginning the work that would become Death on A Painted Lake: The Tom Thomson Tragedy, I surveyed much of the literature that has been written about Tom Thomson's demise, particularly over the last few decades. I encountered stories of drunken fights, unpaid debts, unwanted pregnancy, suicide coverups, and murder conspiracies. What I was surprised to discover, as I turned to the primary evidence - the documents written in 1917 - was how few of these claims had any evidence to support them. What I soon came to realize is that much of what we've been told of Tom Thomson's last spring and death is more myth than fact.

In particular, much of the writing claiming Thomson's death was the result of suicide or murder incorporates fanciful speculation rooted in gossip, misunderstanding, and entertaining but ultimately untrustworthy stories.

 

What are the roots of the mythology?  


Tom Thomson was initially buried in Algonquin Park. Much of the mystery surrounding Thomson’s death was initially fed by awkward communication regarding the Thomson family’s wishes for Tom’s remains. Evidence from the time indicates his family never wanted to have him buried in Algonquin Park, and tried to communicate their wishes to those at Canoe Lake, where his body was discovered and first buried. Technological problems and poorly worded telegrams from those in Canoe Lake produced delays that had repercussions for those living and working in the presence of their friend’s decomposing body. Without word of the Thomson family’s wishes, all at Canoe Lake agreed something must be done. The exceptional challenge of having to deal with a tragic death in the small community, and perhaps some insecurity about who should have responsibility for decision-making regarding Thomson's body, resulted in decisions being made on the fly. Anxiety was no doubt compounded when it was discovered that the decision reached by those at Canoe Lake did not accord with the Thomson family's desires.

Conflict over such an emotional issue clearly caused consternation and frustration all around. The exhumation of Thomson’s body from his Algonquin Park burial site within a day of his preliminary burial created fertile ground for hostility and suspicion over the decades to come. Eventually, these feelings would bear ill fruit.

 

How should Tom Thomson's death be remembered?


Over the last century, Thomson has often been characterized as a deft outdoorsman with natural skill at painting a unique, distinctively Canadian environment that he knew well. This is an image that Thomson’s friends and supporters worked to advance after his death. It was integral to the rise of his reputation. If Thomson died as a result of a canoeing accident in the middle of the day on a calm lake, this image would be significantly destabilized. It is not however, an image, that is necessary to appreciate Thomson’s contribution to the development of Canadian painting. As Harold Town observed, decades of speculation regarding how Tom Thomson died have done little but cloud our understanding of Thomson’s life and the importance of his art. Acceptance of what the evidence suggests about Thomson's death, that he died by accident and not suicide or murder, points to the importance of understanding his painting not through the lens of romantic myth, but as what it was, the inspiring efforts of a skilled and hard-working artist - an artist who could still, nonetheless, make mistakes and suffer accidents.

That Tom Thomson’s painting has become part of the national identity, one of the types of symbols that Canadians share as part of their common language, is a grand legacy for a man who had little art training, but who took the greatest pleasures in life from painting out under the open sky. That he died under that same sky, on the waters and among the trees and islands that populate his paintings is no doubt tragic, and will ever remain so. A hundred years on from his passing, however, he has not been forgotten, nor has the land he loved. Every year thousands of people flock to see his paintings, and to visit Algonquin Park. As a model, as inspiration, his influence lives on. Beyond ideas about his mental state, or his romantic life, or how he managed to get along with his peers, what Tom Thomson is remembered for is the passion that gave his life meaning.

Whether by accident or by natural causes, the fact is that death cannot be put off forever. We have no guarantee of how or when we will die, or what kind of legacy we will leave. Thomson likely cared little about the former, and would be heartily gratified knowing what role he played, and continues to play over a century later, in alerting Canadians to their artistic and natural heritage.



Tom Thomson - 1877-1917 - Rest in peace. 

 

 

July 8, 2017 - Observe 100th anniversary of Tom Thomson's disappearance

100th Anniversary of Tom Thomson's Disappearance

July 8, 2017 -- 2 p.m.

Join cultural historian Dr. Gregory Klages to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the disappearance of renowned Canadian landscape painter Tom Thomson.  
100th Anniversary of Tom Thomson's Disappearance
 
Klages uses first-hand testimony and archival records to sort fact from popular legends in writing about Thomson's mysterious demise. His 2016 book, The Many Deaths of Tom Thomson: Separating Fact from Fiction, has appeared on the National Post Canadian non-fiction bestseller list, and was included in the Writers' Trust of Canada Best Books of 2016. Copies of the book will be available for purchase and signing. This is a free event.
 
Grey Roots Museum & Archives
102599 Grey Road 18, RR4, Owen Sound ON, N4K 5N6
Tel. 519-376-3690, Fax. 519-376-4654
Web: www.greyroots.com


Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Mark Robinson's influential, but inconsistent, testimony about Tom Thomson

Over a period of almost four decades, Mark Robinson, the Algonquin Park Ranger who in July 1917 organized the search for missing artist Tom Thomson, produced multiple remembrances: anecdotes about the artist, accounts of Thomson’s last days, and descriptions of the days following discovery of Thomson’s corpse.

Robinson’s testimony - without much distinction being made between the various accounts provided over thirty-five years -  has often been portrayed as the definitive, authoritative account of the conditions surrounding Thomson’s death. While it is true that Robinson’s 1917 testimony regarding what happened to Tom Thomson must be considered – his daily diary is one of the few ‘on the scene’ accounts we have - inconsistencies and contradictions between Robinson’s 1917 account and his later accounts requires that all of his testimony should be approached with skepticism.  

What was Mark Robinson’s involvement in this case?
Mark Robinson. Undated. Algonquin Park Museum & Archives.
APMA 184

Mark Robinson first served as an Algonquin Park Ranger from 1909 through to 1915.

Robinson met Tom Thomson in 1912. His daily diaries for 1912, 1913 and 1915 include brief references to Thomson as one of many people moving through the park.

In fall 1915, Robinson took up service with the Canadian military, serving in Canada and Europe until the winter of 1916/17.

In April 1917, Robinson returned to service at Algonquin Park’s Joe Lake Station, within easy walking distance of Canoe Lake’s Mowat Lodge. As the presiding park authority for the area, when Tom Thomson went missing in July 1917, Robinson organized the search. He also attended the examination of Thomson’s corpse conducted by Dr. G. W. Howland on July 19, 1917.

Robinson would serve as a park Ranger into the early 1940s, and passed away in 1955.

What accounts did Mark Robinson produce?
We have, essentially, three accounts from Robinson.

One body of testimony was produced in July 1917. Robinson maintained a daily diary, in which he recorded observations about park life, including lists of tasks he completed each day, the conditions of animals and plants, and notes about who was moving through the park (along with where they were from and what their activities in the park would be). He also sometimes noted his own feelings or rumours, such as his comment in April 1917 that he believed Martin Blecher Jr. was a "German spy."

A second body of testimony is a series of letters Robinson exchanged with Tom Thomson biographer Blodwen Davies in 1930 and 1931. Davies had published a Thomson biography in 1930, and had sought out many of Thomson’s acquaintances, Robinson among them. Through his letters, Robinson provided anecdotes about Thomson’s art, his attitude toward nature, remembrances about the search for Thomson, and suggestions about who else might offer useful information.

A third body of testimony is an audio recording of Robinson, likely produced in 1953 by Taylor Statten at Canoe Lake (an Alex Edmison transcription is held by the National Gallery of Canada). The recording preserves Robinson’s story-telling about Thomson, including his ideas about Thomson’s disappearance and death. He was clearly relating his tales to a small audience, who can be heard applauding at the end of the recording.

What is it about Robinson’s testimony that isn’t trustworthy?
A regrettable tendency among commentators addressing Thomson’s death is to approach Robinson’s three bodies of testimony as consistent when they are not. The evolution in Robinson’s accounts and claims is critical to explain if we are to make sense of what Robinson contributes to our understanding of Thomson’s death.

For instance, let’s consider two critical examples of how key aspects of Robinson’s testimony changed from 1917 through to the 1950s.


EXAMPLE 1:
Robinson's testimony about Thomson's injuries, and the conclusions these injuries suggesting about Thomson's cause of death, changed over decades.

In his 1917 daily diary, Robinson noted a bruise on Thomson’s temple, which he suggested was “evidently caused by falling on a rock.” He also states, “otherwise no marks of violence on body.”

In the 1930s, he backed away from his suggestion of accidental death, stating, “Tom was said to have been drowned. It may be quite true but the mystery remains.” While he perhaps speculated that Thomson suffered foul play, we don’t have any written records confirming this suspicion.

The first written record we have where Robinson suggests Thomson was murdered was produced in the 1950s. It was then that Robinson introduced the suggestion that Thomson’s temple “looked as if he had been struck – struck with the edge of a paddle.” 

Robinson’s inconsistent testimony about the condition of Thomson's corpse, and Robinson's conclusions regarding the condition of the remains, has provided much of the impetus for murder conspiracy theories.


EXAMPLE 2: 
Related to the 'murder' story, those who suggest Tom Thomson was found with fishing line around his leg owe this claim to a selective reading of Mark Robinson’s changing testimony. 

In 1917, Robinson makes no mention of a fishing line around any part of Thomson’s corpse in the notes he made after inspecting Thomson’s remains. (In fact, no 1917 account makes mention of fishing line found on Thomson’s corpse.)

This is important, because the first mention of the fishing line that we have comes from Mark Robinson. In 1930, almost fifteen years after Thomson’s death, Robinson mentioned the line for the first time to Thomson biographer, Blodwen Davies. At this time, Robinson suggested the line was not Thomson’s regular line.

Making Robinson’s testimony even more suspect, in the early 1950s, Robinson added details to his story about the fishing line, stating that it was “carefully” wound “16 or 17 times” around Thomson’s ankle.

That the two later accounts did not agree with any 1917 evidence (even evidence provided by Robinson himself) should raise suspicions. That over 35 years Robinson introduced new details into his accounts, and that contrary to how human memory works the accounts became more detailed, also suggests skepticism about Robinson’s claims is necessary.


What can we conclude? 
In his 1917 account, Mark Robinson does not indicate that he suspected that Thomson’s death was anything but accidental. Even his circumstantial testimony records no features pointing to Thomson having suffered foul play or committing suicide. Robinson certainly did not record that he raised any concerns with the coroner or park superintendent.

Thirteen years later, his accounts had evolved. While he does not challenge the conclusion that Thomson died by accident, he intimates that something about the story is not fully known.

By the early 1950s, his claims and conclusions had changed yet again. In the 1950s, he suggested that Thomson had clearly been murdered. Frustratingly, he doesn't provide any explanation why he offered no indication of this belief in 1917 or during the 1930s, or evidence to support such an interpretation.

We do know that working as the Canoe Lake park ranger for decades after Thomson’s death, Robinson was called upon to share his memories many, many times. Over decades, with retelling upon retelling of his stories, perhaps Robinson’s memories become fuzzy, perhaps he even confused memories with fanciful recollections.

For those who suggest that this suggestion unfairly besmirches Robinson’s reputation, we do have some evidence that he misrepresented facts. In the 1950s, he supports his claim regarding the number of times fishing line was wound around Thomson’s ankle with the statement, “I know this because I have it written down in my diary.” Robinson was fortunate that none of his friends were curious enough to ask Robinson to prove this. Why? As I mentioned above, Robinson’s daily diary includes no mention of fishing line at all. His 1950s statement - whether by error or lie - is simply wrong about a critical fact.

But, surely, some claim, couldn’t Robinson simply have remembered more about the story than he did in 1917? This is possible. Over time he may also have made different sense of what he remembered.

I believe we can explain some of the evolution in Robinson’s testimony by looking at the evidence. For instance, if Robinson’s memory about fishing line is correct, there is a far more simple, straight-forward explanation for it being found around Thomson’s ankle than an attempt to hide a corpse. For more on this topic, see Chapter 10 of The Many Deaths of Tom Thomson.

Whatever the explanation, the inconsistencies in Robinson’s accounts regarding Tom Thomson’s death strongly suggest that all of Robinson’s testimony merits careful consideration. The ‘facts’ he remembers don’t always line up with contemporary accounts produced by others, and just as importantly, Robinson’s accounts produced over 35 years aren’t always consistent with each other. In this regard, the authority of any of Robinson’s accounts about the life and death of Tom Thomson is questionable.



---

All of the links for this post direct back to excerpts of transcribed historical documents provided on the website Death On A Painted Lake: The Tom Thomson Tragedy. Gregory Klages was Research Director for the site, launched by the Great Unsolved Mysteries in Canadian History project in 2008. Klages is the author of the 2016 book, The Many Deaths of Tom Thomson: Separating Fact from Fiction (Dundurn Press).


Wednesday, May 24, 2017

June 21, 2017 - Historic Leith Church (site of Tom Thomson's grave)



As part of the Historic Leith Church's 'Tom Thomson's Wake: 100 Years Later' program:
Gregory Klages, speaking on The Many Deaths of Tom Thomson: Separating Fact from Fiction.

Date: Wednesday, June 21, 7:30 p.m.
Location: Historical Leith Church

Q&A session to follow.
Book will be available for purchase/signing.

Tickets: $10
Available at Roxy Theatre, Owen Sound
519-371-2833
roxytheatre.ca/

All proceeds from this event directed to the Leith Church Maintenance and Building Fund.

For more info: http://www.leithchurch.ca/Tom.pdf

Friday, April 28, 2017

Was Winnie Trainor engaged to Tom Thomson? Dr. Noble Sharpe's notes



Over the last century, discussion of Canadian painter Tom Thomson’s 1917 death has included wild claims and poorly-grounded speculation. Over the last few decades, the claim has been frequently offered that Thomson was engaged or being pressured to marry a local woman, Winnifred Trainor. Trainor's family lived just outside Algonquin Park in Huntsville, Ontario, and leased a cottage at Canoe Lake, where Thomson spent time every summer from 1912 to 1917. In Chapter 11 of The Many Deaths of Tom Thomson: Separating Fact from Fiction, I challenge the suggestion that Tom Thomson and Winnifred Trainor were engaged.

Recently, I took up this argument in an exchange on a social media platform. A comment by one of the discussion’s participants particularly caught my attention. It made reference to rarely discussed testimony from Trainor, recorded by Dr. Noble Sharpe. Those familiar with the Thomson case might recall that in 1956, Sharpe supervised exhumation of unidentified human remains found in Algonquin Park. Some have claimed those remains are Tom Thomson’s.

Sharpe's notes, written between the late 1950s and mid-1970s, record conversations he had with Winnifred Trainor in 1956, and perhaps in 1957. They indicate Trainor claimed to have been engaged to Thomson. In a 1970 article he wrote about the case, Sharpe published what Trainor had told him. Sharpe’s claims have not been widely discussed in writing about Thomson’s death.

In The Many Deaths of Tom Thomson, I discussed Sharpe’s 1956 forensic conclusions about the unidentified remains, but I didn’t address his notes about conversations with Trainor. Given the reference to Sharpe’s claims in the recent conversation about Thomson's death, and my lack of comment in The Many Deaths of Tom Thomson, I’ll consider his comments more carefully here.

---------------------------------
Dr. Noble Sharpe was a bona fide forensic expert. In 1956, he had been the medical director of the Ontario Attorney General’s Laboratory (now Ontario’s Centre of Forensic Sciences) for five years. In October 1956, he was instructed to supervise exhumation of unidentified human remains that had been discovered near Mowat Cemetery, at Canoe Lake, Algonquin Park. As Sharpe relates it, when the remains were found, he was already headed to the area west of the park to conduct an inquest. Proximity may have played a factor in having the Lab’s Director supervise exhumation of the remains.

Sharpe had no personal history with Canoe Lake. He did not holiday there, or have friends who holidayed there. He did not personally know any of the people concerned with the 1956 discovery of human remains or the Tom Thomson case, Trainor included. Outside of his investigation of the remains, he had no cause to have conversations with Canoe Lake residents. In October 1956, he spent part of a day at Canoe Lake, most of which was spent at the exhumation site. There is no record that he met or talked with Winnifred Trainor while there. Sharpe's association with the case was easily discoverable, though; his leadership of the 1956 exhumation was reported in popular newspaper articles.

In the mid-1960s, a CBC staffer asked Sharpe if he might be willing to contribute his expertise to a television documentary regarding Tom Thomson’s death. Sharpe shared his reflections on the case, and offered substantial feedback on the CBC’s plans and scripts. A preliminary document he produced is a chronology of events around the 1956 case. The chronology states that on October 22, 1956, he received several calls from Winnifred Trainor. During these calls, he notes, Trainor claimed to have been engaged to Thomson. Sharpe repeats Trainor’s claim in later documents, although his notations regarding the number of times and dates he spoke with Trainor are not consistent.

Sharpe's record might be understood as evidence that Trainor and Thomson were engaged. Closer analysis reveals several critical problems, however, with the notes themselves and with the testimony they record. These problems suggest Trainor's claims, as reported, are generally untrustworthy.

 


1) Quality of evidence:

Sharpe’s notes record a recollection of events made more than a decade after the fact. The 1968 notes might reflect documentary evidence from 1956 that Sharpe had at hand. They might, however, also reflect merely what he remembered. If so, differences between what he recorded in 1956 and what he recorded in 1968 should be carefully considered.

I point this out because differences do exist. None of Sharpe's notes produced in 1956 record calls from Trainor (see, for instance, his Oct. 30, 1956 notes about the case). Another set of notes he produced in 1959 doesn’t mention calls from Trainor, either. His 1968 insertion of calls from Trainor into the chronology of 1956 events (calls that don’t appear in his 1950s notes) suggests that in 1968 Sharpe was not strictly working from his case notes, but also from memory.

Of course, that Sharpe first mentions the calls more than a decade after the fact doesn’t mean that the calls didn’t occur. Perhaps they were recorded in a document that was not preserved. Perhaps he simply remembered them, only perceiving their importance later.

Assuming the calls were made, the absence of 1956 notes about conversations with Trainor is intriguing. It suggests that until the late 1960s Sharpe did not even feel Trainor's claim was significant enough to record. It is hard to believe that in the 1950s Sharpe would not have recognized that Trainor’s claim represented a significant departure from the usual stories of Thomson’s life. That he did not choose to record her claims then might be a good indication of how trustworthy he found Trainor’s claim.

The change in Sharpe’s accounts between the 1950s and 1960s should also serve as a strong reminder. We would be making a mistake if we granted the same evidentiary value to a recollection made more than ten years after the events in question as we do to a document produced at the time of the events. This point is important when we compare two sets of notes Sharpe made in 1968 with each other.


2) Inconsistencies in Sharpe’s 1960s notes:

We know that Sharpe’s 1968 notations are inconsistent with those he made in the 1950s. Interpretation of his claims is made even more difficult when we realize that two documents he wrote about the case in 1968, within a few months of each other, are not consistent.

Between February and August 1968, Sharpe produced a hand-written chronology regarding the case. These notes were likely for his personal use. In the notes, Sharpe indicates that Trainor called him several times on October 22, 1956.

In August 1968, Sharpe typed comments on a CBC television documentary ‘proposed scenario’. This second set of notes was likely for communication to the CBC program producers. These comments sometimes restate verbatim what appeared in the hand-written notes. In the typed comments, Sharpe states that Trainor “phoned me several times in 1956-7.”

In his article published in the Canadian Forensic Science Journal in 1970, he does not detail how many times he and Trainor spoke. In a note produced later in the 1970s, he repeats his claim that he spoke with Trainor several times in 1956 and 1957.

In light of these varying claims, what can we make of Sharpe's comments? It seems reasonable to suggest that Trainor called Sharpe more than once in 1956, likely in October. If she called him again, later in 1956 or in 1957, she doesn’t seem to have offered any new information, or Sharpe dismissed the calls as so unimportant as not even deserving a note. Alternatively, after more than decade, perhaps Sharpe wasn’t sure when, or how many times Trainor called him. This suggestion might help explain the variations in his notes; he did not feel confident committing publicly or to the CBC producers exactly when or how many times Trainor had called him.


3) Contradictions in Trainor’s claims and 1917 evidence

Setting aside the inconsistencies in Sharpe’s record regarding how many times he and Trainor spoke, evidence suggests Trainor’s claims (as recorded by Sharpe) should not be trusted. Trainor’s claim about being engaged to Thomson was one among a number of other claims that appear to have very likely been intentionally false.

In both his handwritten and typed 1968 notes, Sharpe states Trainor told him that she and her father were present when the “second undertaker” returned with Thomson’s body, and that she was sure Thomson’s body was in the casket.

The reference to the ‘second undertaker’ presumably refers to the Huntsville undertaker, Churchill, who exhumed Tom Thomson’s corpse for relocation to the Thomson family plot in Leith. Park Ranger Mark Robinson's 1917 daily diary records that the undertaker arrived on the night of July 18th, and the casket containing Thomson’s exhumed body was loaded on the evening train at Canoe Lake Station the following night (July 19th).

Mark Robinson records that Winnifred Trainor left on the train from Canoe Lake Station on the evening of July 17th. Phone records, as well as her own August 1917 letters to Thomson family members indicate Trainor was in Scotia Junction on the morning of the 18th.

We do not have any records indicating Trainor returned to Canoe Lake in time to be standing on the train platform on the evening of July 19. In the months following Tom's death, when she described to Tom's family her attempts to intervene in decision-making about Tom's remains and beliefs about Tom's death, she never mentions returning to Canoe Lake for the 19th. She never suggested that she had seen Thomson’s casket being loaded on the train.

Margaret Thomson, one of Tom’s sisters, met Trainor in Toronto in August 1917. Margaret’s notes about that conversation don’t include any mention of Trainor claiming to have seen the exhumed casket.

Sharpe’s 1968 notes are the first mention we have of Trainor being present in Canoe Lake on July 19th. Logic suggests this exceptional claim was not produced by new rigour being applied to investigation of the fifty-year old case, or new primary evidence being located. It is also very unlikely that Trainor merely had previously overlooked mentioning that she had viewed Thomson's exhumed casket. Trainor’s testimony as recorded by Dr. Sharpe very likely indicates Trainor purposefully attempted to deceive Sharpe in the 1950s.

An additional piece of evidence, not produced directly by Sharpe, supports the conclusion that Sharpe’s recollections and Trainor’s claims might be inaccurate, if not untrustworthy.

In November 1973, Dr. Sharpe’s friend and peer, Dr. Doug Lucas, then Director of the Ontario Attorney General’s Laboratory, arranged a meeting between Dr. Sharpe and Charles Plewman. In 1972, Plewman wrote an article about Thomson’s death for the Canadian Camping Association magazine. In 1973, he approached Lucas after hearing him speak about the case at a Toronto Rotary Club meeting. In his notes about Sharpe’s and Plewman’s conversation, Lucas states, “Noble Sharpe said that Miss Trainor called him two or three times in 1956 and told him that she and her father were at the station when [Churchill] returned with the casket.” He also notes, “She also at another time told him that she and her father were present when the body was exhumed."

Given their hearsay nature, we should not give too much significance to Lucas’ comments. They are, however, consistent with the conclusions about Sharpe’s records reached above. As in Sharpe’s notes, Lucas’ comments indicate that Trainor spoke to Sharpe several times, although it is not clear whether these conversations all took place in 1956 or not. Lucas’ record of what Sharpe claimed about the calls further suggests that Trainor’s testimony might have been deeply, and perhaps to Sharpe, obviously flawed. If the suggestion that Trainor witnessed Thomson’s coffin being loaded on the train on July 19th lacks for evidence, the suggestion that Trainor was present when Thomson’s body was exhumed on the night of July 18th is even less plausible. To be present on the night of the 18th would have required Trainor to have returned to Canoe Lake from Scotia Junction almost immediately after speaking with the Thomson family and the Huntsville undertaker. This is physically possible, but no 1917 record mentioning the trip or Trainor’s presence at Canoe Lake on July 18th or 19th has ever been produced. Neither the letters Trainor wrote to the Thomson family in 1917 nor Mark Robinson’s daily diary record Trainor’s presence at Canoe Lake on July 18th or 19th. The claim only begins to appear in 1968, and only in documents produced by Dr. Sharpe, or reporting Dr. Sharpe’s claims. If Trainor was at Canoe Lake on July 19th or 20th, it is inconceivable that Trainor did not refer to such an important experience in any of her 1917 correspondence with the Thomson family, and that no one at Canoe Lake would refer to her presence for the exhumation or departure of Thomson's corpse in documents written at the time.


Conclusions:

Clearly, Dr. Noble Sharpe’s notes regarding his 1950s telephone conversations with Winnifred Trainor suffer from inconsistencies. More importantly, the testimony from Winnifred Trainor recorded in these notes contradicts the evidence we have from 1917. If Sharpe’s notes about Trainor’s testimony are accurate, then they very likely reflect Trainor’s errors or lies.


Where do these observations leave the suggestion that Winnifred Trainor and Tom Thomson were engaged? As I suggest in The Many Deaths of Tom Thomson, hearsay and poorly-grounded speculation has come to dominate and displace evidence-based claims about Thomson’s death, particularly since the 1970s. In talk about whether Thomson and Trainor were engaged we have been offered gossip, guesses, faulty memories, and perhaps, as Sharpe’s notes about Trainor’s testimony suggest, lies. Certainly, Trainor’s claims of 1956, at least as recorded by Sharpe, don’t prove anything about Thomson’s marital status. They do, however, indicate something about the weaknesses of testimony made long after the events in question, even by those who might have been involved in Thomson’s case in 1917.



---

All of the links for this post direct back to excerpts of transcribed historical documents provided on the website Death On A Painted Lake: The Tom Thomson Tragedy. Gregory Klages was Research Director for the site, launched by the Great Unsolved Mysteries in Canadian History project in 2008. Klages is the author of the 2016 book, The Many Deaths of Tom Thomson: Separating Fact from Fiction (Dundurn Press).