How a Predator's Lies Cost Sharmini Anandavel Her Life
On the morning of June 12, 1999, fifteen-year-old Sharmini Anandavel left her family's apartment in Toronto's Don Mills neighborhood with excitement in her step and hope in her heart. She had told her parents she was starting a new job with the police department—a summer position that seemed like the perfect opportunity for a bright teenager with dreams of becoming a lawyer. It was the last time her family would see her alive.
The job Sharmini believed she was starting didn't exist. Someone had crafted an elaborate lie, complete with fake applications and false promises, to lure a trusting teenager to her death. Twenty-six years later, despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence pointing to a man who would later be designated a dangerous offender for nearly identical crimes, Sharmini's murder remains officially unsolved—a testament to how a clever predator can exploit the gaps in the justice system.
A Bright Future Cut Short
Sharmini Anandavel embodied the hopes and dreams of countless immigrant families who come to Canada seeking better opportunities for their children. Living in Don Mills with her parents and younger brother, she was described as bright, hardworking, and ambitious. At just fifteen, she had already set her sights on becoming a lawyer—a goal that seemed well within reach for a teenager known for her intelligence and determination.
Like many teens, Sharmini was looking for summer work, eager to earn some money and gain experience that might help her future career aspirations. In 1999, the job market for teenagers was competitive, making any opportunity seem valuable. When what appeared to be a legitimate job offer came her way, particularly one connected to law enforcement that aligned with her career interests, it must have seemed like a dream come true.
The promise of work with the police department would have been especially appealing to someone with Sharmini's ambitions. For a teenager dreaming of a career in law, the chance to get inside experience with law enforcement would have been irresistible. It was precisely this combination of ambition, trust, and opportunity that a predator would exploit with devastating consequences.
The Neighbor Downstairs
At the center of this tragedy was Stanley Tippett, a 23-year-old man who lived just one floor below the Anandavel family. To those around him, Tippett presented himself as someone with connections to law enforcement. He was known to wear a police-style jacket and patrol the apartment building's hallways, creating an impression among residents—particularly children—that he was affiliated with police work.
This manufactured authority would prove to be Tippett's most dangerous weapon. Sharmini's younger brother remembered Tippett offering his sister a job, and neighbors had grown accustomed to seeing him in his pseudo-official capacity around the building. By positioning himself as someone with law enforcement connections, Tippett had carefully constructed the perfect cover for his predatory behavior.
The timing of Tippett's actions was also telling. He had moved out of his apartment just weeks before Sharmini's disappearance—a detail that would later seem significant as investigators pieced together the timeline of events. This departure from the building removed him from the immediate vicinity just as his plan was set into motion, creating distance between himself and the crime scene.
The Lure and the Lie
According to investigators, Sharmini had filled out what appeared to be a legitimate job application before her disappearance. She told friends and family that she had been offered work as an "undercover drug operative" by someone she believed to be a police officer. The job was supposedly with something called the "Metro Search Unit"—an official-sounding name that lent credibility to the offer.
The reality was far more sinister. The Metro Search Unit didn't exist. It was a complete fabrication, designed to give legitimacy to what was actually an elaborate trap. Tippett later admitted to giving Sharmini a job application, though he claimed it was for work at a local pool and denied any involvement beyond that. This admission would prove crucial years later when investigators began to see the full pattern of his behavior.
The sophistication of the deception cannot be understated. This wasn't a spur-of-the-moment crime or a random encounter gone wrong. Someone had taken the time to create fake documentation, establish a false identity as a law enforcement recruiter, and carefully cultivate trust with their victim over time. The level of planning involved suggests a predator who understood exactly how to exploit the hopes and trust of young people seeking legitimate opportunities.
A Family's Worst Nightmare
When Sharmini failed to return home that evening, her family's concern quickly turned to panic. This was not a teenager prone to staying out without permission or failing to communicate with her parents. She was responsible, reliable, and excited about her new job opportunity. Her absence could only mean something had gone terribly wrong.
The search for Sharmini stretched on for agonizing months, with her family clinging to hope while fearing the worst. Finally, four months after her disappearance, her body was discovered in a wooded ravine not far from where she lived. The location was isolated enough to conceal a crime but close enough to suggest someone familiar with the local area.
By the time Sharmini's remains were found, decomposition had eliminated most physical evidence. Investigators couldn't determine a precise cause of death, and any DNA evidence that might have been present had long since degraded. This absence of forensic evidence would prove to be the crucial factor that allowed her killer to escape justice, despite mounting circumstantial evidence pointing to his identity.
A Pattern Emerges
While the lack of physical evidence meant that charges couldn't be filed in Sharmini's case, Stanley Tippett's behavior in the years that followed would reveal a chilling pattern that validated investigators' suspicions. In 2005, six years after Sharmini's murder, Tippett struck again using almost identical methods.
At a Walmart job fair in Peterborough, Ontario, Tippett approached a 21-year-old recent immigrant, introducing himself as "Jason Armstrong." Like Sharmini, this young woman was vulnerable—desperate for work to support herself and sponsor her husband's immigration to Canada. Tippett promised her employment at the YMCA and provided her with what appeared to be a legitimate job application.
The parallels to Sharmini's case were striking. Once again, Tippett had targeted someone seeking employment, someone whose circumstances made them particularly vulnerable to promises of work. Once again, he had used a false identity and fake documentation to establish credibility. And once again, he had specifically chosen someone who might be less likely to question unusual aspects of the job offer due to their desperate circumstances.
When the 2005 victim stopped responding to Tippett's contacts, his behavior escalated to stalking. This led police to search his van, where they made a discovery that sent chills through the investigation team. Inside the vehicle was what officers would later describe as an "abduction kit"—a collection of items including duct tape, plastic sheeting, rope, zip ties, knives, and a pellet gun.
The Smoking Gun That Couldn't Be Fired
The contents of Tippett's van provided a terrifying glimpse into what he had planned for his victims. This wasn't the toolkit of someone offering legitimate employment—it was the carefully assembled arsenal of a predator planning to kidnap, assault, and possibly murder. The discovery validated every suspicion investigators had harbored about Sharmini's case, but it came too late to help prosecute her murder.
The fake job application strategy appeared to be Tippett's signature method—an extremely specific modus operandi that he had refined over years. The similarity between his "YMCA" ruse in 2005 and the fabricated "Metro Search Unit" job offer to Sharmini was too precise to be coincidental. Both involved fake applications, both targeted vulnerable young women seeking employment, and both used Tippett's manufactured authority to establish trust.
Yet despite this compelling pattern, prosecutors determined that the evidence in Sharmini's case still didn't meet the threshold for trial. Canadian law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and while the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming, there was no forensic proof linking Tippett directly to Sharmini's death. A pattern of behavior, no matter how convincing, wasn't enough to secure a conviction for murder.
Escalation and Justice Delayed
Tippett's crimes continued to escalate in both frequency and severity. That same year, 2005, he repeatedly contacted a 13-year-old girl with job offers, behavior that finally drew official police attention when her mother reported the incidents. Tippett received probation for this offense, but once again, serious charges were avoided, and his possession of kidnapping tools went unexplained in court.
The pattern continued until August 2008, when Tippett's predatory behavior reached its inevitable violent conclusion. In Courtice, near Peterborough, he encountered two intoxicated girls late at night and offered them a ride home. While he dropped one off safely—perhaps as part of establishing trust or an alibi—he drove the other, a 12-year-old, into nearby woods where he brutally assaulted her.
The attack was interrupted only by the intervention of a nearby resident who heard screams and immediately called police. Officers arrived to find the naked, incoherent victim stumbling from the woods while Tippett fled in his red van. A high-speed chase ensued but was called off for public safety reasons. Tippett was arrested at his home within hours.
At his trial in December 2009, Tippett claimed he had been carjacked and that the carjackers were responsible for the assault. The judge found his story "not believable," convicting him on multiple counts of kidnapping and sexual assault. In October 2011, he was officially designated a dangerous offender, ensuring he would remain behind bars indefinitely.
The Dangerous Offender Designation
The dangerous offender designation represents the most serious classification in Canadian criminal law, reserved for individuals who pose an ongoing threat to public safety. To receive this designation, prosecutors must prove that the offender represents a pattern of persistent aggressive behavior, that their behavior shows a substantial degree of indifference to the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons, and that their behavior is so brutal that they cannot be inhibited by normal standards of behavioral restraint.
In Tippett's case, the evidence was overwhelming. His progression from fake job offers and stalking to violent sexual assault demonstrated exactly the kind of escalating predatory behavior that the dangerous offender provisions were designed to address. The 2008 assault was not an isolated incident but rather the culmination of years of increasingly serious predatory behavior.
The designation provided some measure of justice, ensuring that Tippett could never again prowl job fairs or apartment buildings looking for vulnerable victims. But for Sharmini's family, it was justice denied—official confirmation that the man they had long suspected of killing their daughter was indeed a dangerous predator, yet no charges could be filed in connection with her murder.
A Family's Endless Fight
Throughout the years of legal proceedings against Tippett for other crimes, Sharmini's family never stopped fighting for justice in her case. They watched as the man they believed killed their daughter was convicted of crimes with nearly identical patterns to her disappearance, yet they remained unable to see him held accountable for her death.
Sharmini's mother captured the family's anguish in an interview with CBC: "She was trusting. She believed in people. She believed in that job. That's what haunts me most." These words encapsulate not just a mother's grief, but the particular cruelty of how Sharmini was victimized—her trust and ambition weaponized against her by someone who had carefully studied her vulnerabilities.
The case has been featured in various media outlets over the years, including the CBC podcast "Uncover: Sharmini" and detailed coverage in Toronto Life magazine. These efforts have helped keep Sharmini's story in the public consciousness, maintaining pressure on authorities to continue seeking justice and raising awareness about the tactics used by predators like Tippett.
The Cold Case That Burns Hot
Today, twenty-six years after Sharmini Anandavel walked out of her family's apartment for the last time, her case remains officially unsolved. Despite compelling circumstantial evidence, despite a prime suspect now designated as too dangerous ever to be released, despite nearly identical crimes that validate every suspicion about what happened to her, no charges have ever been filed in connection with her murder.
The case represents one of the most frustrating aspects of criminal justice—situations where investigators and families know who committed a crime but cannot prove it to the standard required for prosecution. It demonstrates how a clever predator can exploit the very protections built into our legal system, using the requirement for physical evidence to escape accountability for carefully planned crimes.
Yet Sharmini's case also serves as a crucial example of how predatory behavior escalates when left unchecked. Tippett's progression from fake job offers to violent assault validates the concerns of investigators who suspected him in Sharmini's death. His eventual designation as a dangerous offender confirms that their instincts were correct—he was indeed capable of the violence they suspected.
Lessons from a Life Cut Short
The story of Sharmini Anandavel offers several important lessons about predatory behavior and victim selection. Tippett's methods reveal how sophisticated predators operate—they don't simply grab victims off the street but instead cultivate relationships, establish false authority, and exploit specific vulnerabilities.
His targeting of job seekers was particularly insidious because it exploited people at moments when they were hopeful and trusting. Job seekers, especially young people and immigrants, are often eager to please and reluctant to question unusual requests from potential employers. They may overlook red flags that they would immediately recognize in other contexts.
The use of fake law enforcement credentials added another layer of manipulation, exploiting the natural tendency to trust and comply with authority figures. For someone like Sharmini, who dreamed of a career in law, the offer of work with police would have seemed not just legitimate but exciting.
The Ongoing Search for Closure
While Stanley Tippett will likely never leave prison, Sharmini's case technically remains open. Cold case investigators continue to review the file periodically, hoping that new forensic techniques or previously overlooked evidence might finally provide the proof needed to file charges.
For Sharmini's family, the dangerous offender designation provides some measure of satisfaction—confirmation that the man they believe killed their daughter can never hurt anyone else. But it cannot provide the formal justice they seek, the official acknowledgment that Sharmini was murdered and that her killer has been held accountable.
The case serves as a reminder that justice delayed is often justice denied, and that the absence of physical evidence can allow even the most obvious perpetrators to escape formal accountability. It also demonstrates the importance of recognizing patterns of predatory behavior before they escalate to murder.
Sources
https://torontolife.com/city/who-killed-sharmini-anandavel/
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/uncover/uncover-season-5-sharmini-transcripts-listen-1.5277530
