OPP Zameer-Northrup Report Supports An Impossible Impact Scenario
Much emphasis was placed by Toronto’s Chief of Police, Toronto’s Police Association President and even Premier Doug Ford on a report authored by members of the Ontario Provincial Police with respect to their review of the fatal collision whereby Constable Jeffery Northrup was killed in the underground parking garage of Toronto’s City Hall on July 2, 2021. The driver of the BMW car that struck Northrup, Umar Zameer, was originally charged with murder. In the subsequent trial Zameer was found not guilty. It was explained by Zameer at trial that he did not realize that the two plain-clothes officers (Northup and Forbes) were police but that they were criminals intending to rob him. Thus as the officers surrounded his vehicle he attempted to escape by accelerating quickly out of his parking spot.
At trial two reconstructionists, one from the Toronto Police Service and the other retained by Zameer’s defense both came to similar conclusions as to how the collision occurred. They both opined that Northrup was knocked over near the left-front fender of the BMW while it was reversed by Zameer. Northrup fell down and then the BMW rode over top of his body when Zameer accelerated forward. The presiding judge, Ontario Superior Court Justice Anne Molley, expressed her concern when two other plain-clothed officers, Constable Antonio Correa and Constable Scharnil Pais, collaborated the testimony of Constable Lisa Forbes that Constable Northrup was standing in the lane with his hands up, in front of the BMW when he was struck.
Justice Molley stated:
“…all three officers would have to be wrong about this detail in exactly the same way for this theory to make sense. That also raises an issue of whether, if they were wrong about where he was standing, they may also be wrong about if he was standing in front of the BMW at all. When three versions of an event are wrong, and wrong in the same way, you must also consider whether there has been collusion between those witnesses. All of the officers denied collusion. As I described to you earlier when dealing with eyewitness testimony, one witness can honestly mis-remember an event, particularly when the event was traumatic or shocking in nature. Ladies and gentlemen, it is possible for one officer to have a memory of Officer Northrup standing in front of the vehicle in the middle of that laneway with his arms raised to his chest level and his palms outstretched, even if that memory is not accurate. It is for you to decide if it is possible for three officers to have that same mistaken memory”
I have not had an opportunity to examine the evidence except through the comments made about the trial and what was contained in the OPP report following the trial. This does not negate the following opinion I express because my opinion only focuses on the specific OPP analysis of the impact contained in their report.
The portion of the OPP report discussing their findings about the impact is shown in the text and figure below.
.
The OPP text accompanying the above photo states “The OPP reconstructionist marked a green arrow that indicated the principal direction of force of the BMW to Detective Constable Northup during the collision”. If the reconstructionist had any rudimentary understanding of Newton’s Third Law of Motion (“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”) he should have understood that the travel direction of Northrup’s body would be opposite to the direction of force exerted on his body. So, clearly, Northrup’s body would travel along the same line as the green arrow but in the opposite direction, or towards the centre-rear of the hood. This is not arguable opinion, this is basic science.
The following set of four photos show a re-enactment of a pedestrian’s motion during a frontal impact by a passenger car typically known as a “wrap trajectory”. Such a trajectory has been well-known for many decades in the collision reconstruction community. Because this re-enactment is from a scenario where the pedestrian and vehicle are both stopped it cannot fully depict the pedestrian’s body moving or sliding rearward up the hood and toward the windshield that would occur in the dynamic scenario where the striking vehicle is in motion. But the general dynamics are there.
The basic point of this enactment is to show that the centre-of-gravity of an adult pedestrian is generally above the leading edge of the grille/hood of passenger cars and this causes the pedestrian’s body to travel onto the hood while the lower legs are struck and carried in the direction of the striking vehicle. It has been reported that Constable Northrup was six feet four inches tall and this would be substantially taller than a typical adult.
If Northrup’s body was on the hood of the BMW and the BMW was reportedly in high forward acceleration Northrup’s body would continue to travel rearwards with respect to the striking vehicle. And if the principal direction of force was at the angle depicted in the OPP figure then Northrup’s body would travel rearward and to the right with respect to that hood.
The additional factor is that the BMW was at a state of being steered hard to the left at the time of contact. If the principal direction of force was as shown, the turning of the BMW would be progressively toward Northrup’s body and this would also be the mechanism by which his body would be expected to move toward the right and onto the BMW’s hood.
In this scenario the body would exist on the hood for a substantial time and distance. Northrup’s body could not just magically fall to the ground in a split second. And if Northrup’s body was carried on the BMW’s hood for a reasonable time the point where Northrup’s body was run over would have to be a substantial distance forward of where the OPP determined the initial contact occurred. However the OPP report indicated the following:
“The OPP reconstructionist concluded Detective Constable Northrup was standing at the BMW’s front left corner when the BMW accelerated forward, struck Detective Constable Northrup, plowed him along the ground, drove over him and fled the scene.“
So how could Northrup’s body end up under the front end of the BMW if his body was moving in a direction toward the right and rear of its hood and his body was being carried on that hood? This is simply impossible. This is not just a bad reconstruction, it is a terribly bad reconstruction.
Who were the police individuals who signed the OPP report and what experience did they have in analyzing pedestrian collisions? This has not been revealed but it is a crucial point. Such basic errors in physics are appalling and why they occurred must begin with an understanding of the background of these individuals.
This is likely why the testimony of Constables Forbes, Correa and Pais was not believed by the court. And this is why both the Toronto Police Service reconstructionist and the defense reconstructionist both agreed on the general scenario that Constable Northrup was not standing up when the BMW accelerated forward and struck him.
Consistent with the previous actions of Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford, he was quoted by news media saying that “Maybe the judge should apologize”. No the judge should not apologize, Premier Doug Ford should apologize for accepting the OPP analysis without understanding that it was flawed. The OPP should apologize to the public for allowing such a report to be written in the name of the OPP.
Toronto’s Police Chief, Myron Demkiw, made a bad decision that made matters worse. He made the decision to invite another police agency to conduct an investigation about members of his own force. Anyone in the policing community would recognize that the public has never trusted a situation where one police force investigates another. This is why an agency such as Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU) was created so that there would be some arm’s length separation between police agencies protecting their own kind.
Historically there have been many problems with the SIU and these were going to be corrected by recommendations made by Justice Michael Tulloch in an April, 2017, 263-page report encompassing seven months of research and resulting in 129 recommendations. The liberal provincial government was going to enact the Safer Ontario Act at that time encompassing most of Tulloch’s recommendations and this became law in March of 2018. But the Progressive Conservative party came into power in June and Doug Ford scrapped the law.
In March 17 and 19, 2026 articles posted by CP24 News of Toronto there were a number of views provided about the OPP report. It is not surprising that the lawyer for Zameer, Nader Hasan, reportedly called the OPP report “profoundly disappointing, reckless and irresponsible”. Nasan called out Chief Demkiw who appeared to support the OPP’s findings as Demkiw stated;
“This report is about allegations that our members faced, and it speaks to that investigation, which, quite frankly, again, I’d encourage everybody to read. It is very thorough and comprehensive as it relates to those allegations and the vindication of our members facing those allegations.”
This is an occasion where those collision reconstructionists, whether they be employees of the police, or private consultants, need to speak up and point out that the analysis of the OPP reconstructionist about how the impact occurred is greatly wrong and against accepted, basic science.
OPP Report Into Zameer-Northrup Tragedy
A 55-page report was released today by the OPP with respect the collision on July 2, 2021 whereby Toronto Police Constable Jeffery Northup was killed. The OPP have concluded that the previous investigations and the opinions expressed by the trial judge in this case were in error. We are reviewing this report and will have more to say once we have digested its content.
Lack of Transparency of In-Vehicle Surveillance Programs
The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is drafting new legislation that will require the monitoring of drivers with cameras that evaluate the drivers ability to safely control their vehicle. Infrared sensors will track eye movement, pupil dilation, glances and head nods indicative of drowsiness. These sensors will be combined with Artificial Intelligence to prevent vehicle “ignition” if impairment is determined. This law will reportedly come into effect with 2027 model vehicles.
The new technology will add a few hundred dollars to the cost of a new vehicle while it is expected to save between 9,000 and 10,000 lives annually.
It is known that impaired driving is a major safety concern. Technology that can drastically reduce impaired driving is a valuable safety benefit. However, too often, governments and their agencies are shortsighted in understanding the repercussions of such legislation. They only see the benefit that is conveyed to them while not seeing the broader picture of how the public might react to the legislation. This technology will allow the collection of very detailed personal information while there has been no explanation as to how that information will be safe-guarded from unauthorized collection and use. It is a common problem that governments and their representatives do not understand the meaning of transparency, or they know it, but are unwilling to abide by it.
Public backlash is not unheard of. Recently the Ontario government of Doug Ford made it illegal for municipalities to use speed cameras to monitor speeding drivers. This was largely successful because municipalities in Ontario were secretive about how the programs were used. Ford was able to suggest that the cameras were a “cash grab” and were not being used to improve road safety. The cash grab was likely because the threshold for designating speeding was set too low and there were many drivers who were being fined for travelling minimally above the posted speed. However that specific threshold was never publicly disclosed, neither by Ford nor by the municipalities. So a valuable tool that could have saved many lives in Ontario was scraped because there was insufficient transparency over how the tool was being used. This is how the same circumstance could befall the monitoring of drivers for impairment. Failure to involve the public and failure to be transparent with the public is a recipe for failure of any secretive government program.
Continued Non-Reporting of Facts From Collision In South-West London Ontario
Gorski Consulting has previously reported ( October 11 and November 23, 2025) on the strange reporting of a fatal collision that occurred on November 3, 2020 at the intersection of Southdale Road and White Oak Road in London, Ontario. Those articles are still available to be reviewed on this Gorski Consulting website. In the latest developments, the person charged by London Police, Bahaa Ali, was reportedly found guilty of dangerous driving causing death. It had been reported that Ali tried to convince the court that he was not the driver of the Mercedes that struck a Hyundai Sonata and killed a passenger in the Sonata, Joan Clubb. The judge did not believe the bazaar explanation. Ali’s sentencing is reportedly set for April 24, 2026.
For those following the Gorski Consulting articles, we have tried to explain that the physical evidence visible in the collision photos did not support the conclusion that Ali was travelling at 129 km/h at the time of the impact. Also we have tried to explain that, although the collision was of a substantial severity, one should not expect that the passenger of the Sonata should have died, particularly when she was initially reported (by CTV News London) to be alert and communicating with paramedics but that “…things would take a turn for the worse and Clubb would die in hospital“. None of these issues were reported to the public except through the Gorski Consulting articles and very few persons review those articles compared to the vast audience attracted by official news media.
When important matters like these are not publicly disclosed it is not just a trivial matter. Public understanding and opinion is shaped by what is reported and what is not reported. As has been apparent in the wider field of life, the public’s manipulation through misinformation and fake news is a growing problem. Without falling into a state of paranoia we need to be critical of what we are told to believe, think about the purpose of the message and what the messenger may be attempting to manipulate. With the advent of postings on the internet’s social media the navigational beacons that have kept professional, investigative journalism within a somewhat reasonable range of truth have been replaced by social media “influencers”. Anyone can now post anything about anything. And if that posting is capable of capturing a large group of impressionable persons truth does not matter. You cannot be fired for misrepresenting the truth if you are not a professional journalist. That is a dangerous recipe.
The lack of reporting of important issues surrounding collisions in Ontario is nothing new. It has been going on since motor vehicles were introduced on public roads and likely existed before that when collisions involved horses and buggies and trains in the 1800s. However, as our society has evolved, our ability to understand how collisions occur and the methods and equipment we use to reconstruct those collisions have become much more sophisticated. We are now able to say, with much more scientific certainty, that these events occurred in a certain way, and were caused by certain factors. And when this analysis is done in an unbiased way it can be helpful in resolving many collision questions. Regrettably Ontario’s courtrooms, and the reports about how they function, have not kept up with these collision reconstruction advancements.
Cause of School Bus Fire Must Not Be Hidden
Minimal information was reported as to how and why a school bus caught fire on Innis Lake Road in Caledon East, north of Toronto, Ontario, on March 12, 2026. It was reported that 44 high school students and the bus driver were able to escape without injury. An article posted by CTV News in Barrie stated “Officials confirm the fire is not considered suspicious and appears to have been mechanical in nature” but that can mean many things.
“Not considered suspicous?”, what does that mean? Is it not relevant because someone believes the bus was not set on fire on purpose? Is that why officials recommend that we “move on, nothing to see here”? Does it matter whether the bus was set on fire on purpose or accidentally? Would either cause the potential of multiple deaths? Clearly there is a reason why we ought to know how and why the bus caught fire. Did the fire originate from a hot exhaust system? Did it originate from a wiring problem? Specifics are needed.
Nothing has been said about which bus operator owned the bus or who manufactured the bus. We can examine some the general characteristics of the bus in the above photo and we can come to some general conclusions.
The bus does not appear to be of an older vintage. As buses get older they begin to show warning signs that become displayed on the dash. Some of these warnings occur because certain sensors become aged and less functional. So something like a wheel sensor warning indicating a traction control issue may be of minimal concern. On older buses the engines do not work like they used to and we often see a “hot exhaust” warning and this may be a continual display on the bus without a simple remedy. But this is not a common problem on newer buses.
Diesel buses need Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) to keep the engine from getting clogged up and when this fluid is not topped up we can get overheating of the engine and exhaust. So it would be important to determine what was the status of the DEF before this bus caught fire.
In 2025 Gorski Consulting posted articles on July 28 and September 16, regarding electric school buses manufactured by Lion Electric Company of Quebec. Those buses were taken off the road after a Lion bus caught fire in Montreal in early September, 2025. So it would be helpful to determine whether the bus fire at Caledon was a Lion bus. However, no one has provided that important information.
Although there are several types of buses driven on roads in southern Ontario, a large number come from just a few manufacturers. Below is a photo taken of the rear of a Lion bus and if we compare its features to the photo of the burning bus at the beginning of this article it does not resemble a Lion bus.
The next photo below shows the rear end of an International bus and it too does not appear to match the features of the burning bus.
In the next photo we see the rear of a Thomas built bus and its features seem to be similar to those of the burning bus.
Thomas buses are built in North Carolina.
All persons involved in school bus transportation ought to be viewing this school bus fire with concern. As mentioned on this Gorski Consulting website so often, secrecy is of no help to anyone expect to those who have a vested interest in hiding something for which they should be accountable. All persons should be voicing their right to know how and why this bus caught fire.
You must be logged in to post a comment.