You can help support the show by donating via the Venmo app with my username @billhuffman3 or thru clicking in this Pay Pal link or with my email  

Thank you! Your support helps keep this platform alive to continue talking about the stories which don't receive the attention they deserve. 

Alison Parrott disappeared near Varsity Stadium in downtown Toronto in 1986.

She was supposedly meeting with a photographer.

It was 6:30 p.m.—four hours since Alison should have returned home.

After Alison didn’t return home and her mom called the police.

A massive search began two hours later involving 150 police officers and 24 friends and neighbors of Lesley Parrott and her husband, Peter, an engineer.

They spent the hot, rainy evening looking through the stadium, then vacant lots, alleys and ravines.

The search was covered heavily by television and radio.

Alison’s mother would appeal for her daughter’s return, throughout the weekend.


Two days after Alison’s disappearance, two boys

discovered Her body in a west-end park.

Lesley Parrott said Alison regularly used the subway.

After the discovery, Police sealed off the area and assigned 60 officers to search all the garbage collected in the subway system since July 25 for clues.

Alison’s killing took a toll on the city much like Amy’s killing has continued to loom over Bay Village.

The way both girls were stalked is another reason these killings still resonate today.

As mentioned in Part One, Alison was a runner. Albeit a newbie to the sport she had talent. She won the first race she entered and the local papers covered her accomplishment.

Police at the time believed that Alison’s killer was probably aware of her running and that’s when he began to stalk her.

With little evidence at the time, police offered a reward of $50,000 to help track the killer.

DNA technology didn’t exist in 1986 but they were able to collect fluids from Alison’s body.

A 1986 article they reference the technology being used at the time. It’s interesting because we’re so used to DNA today but this is what they said “, and investigators even used a laser beam to scan the girl’s body for fingerprints, hairs or other traces that might identify the abductor.”

One suspect that was interviewed in 1986 was Carl Francis Roy.

He was a runner and lived near Alison

They didn’t have anything at the time to connect him to the body.

That changed in 1993 when scientists began using advanced DNA technology.

In 1996, the fluids they found on Alison were tested. The test was able to prove once and for all that Francis Carl Roy was indeed the killer.

After stalking Roy’s movements for days the police found what they were looking for, a discarded cigarette butt with Roy’s DNA.

Dr. Wayne Murray describes what can be found “

SOT- Dr. Wayne Murray

Almost ten years after Alison’s murder Roy was arrested.

The strongest piece of evidence against Roy was DNA found in the girl's body that matched Roy's.

This is where things start to get a little bit too graphic and I will do my best to minimize his ridiculous defense.

Roy's lawyer tried to raise the possibility that police charged the wrong man.

This is where the defense jumps the shark. Roy's explanation for the DNA was that he discovered Alison's naked body in a park, and then molested her.

Roy's lawyer told the jury “what Roy did was “admittedly vile and disgusting”, he wasn't a murderer.

SOT – Defense lawyer

The jury deliberated for six days before returning its verdict.

It took five days for the jury to reach a verdict.

The jury wasn’t told that Roy had twice been convicted of rape or that both victims were teenagers.

Another item the jury was was unaware of is that one of his previous victims was tricked, abducted and bound, much like Alison.


Francis Roy was found guilty of the first-degree murder of 11-year-old Alison Parrott.

Roy, 41, faces an automatic life sentence with no parole eligibility for 25 years.

Alison's mother, Lesley Party met with reporter’s outside the courtroom.

She told them she was relieved the trial was over.


"We never had any doubt that the just and right decision would happen," she said. "We are very grateful to a jury who had to work long and hard, perhaps with not all the information they should have had to come to this decision."


Share | Download