About three years ago, a girl that I used to work with and knew well enough to refer to as an associate went missing. My brother had previously lived with her and her boyfriend, and I knew her friends quite well, so we all banded together and started the search. I put posters up in my city, and tried to keep up on what was going on. I watched the news when Niel (her bf) cried because she was missing. And then nothing happened for 12 months. We had no idea where she was, what happened or if she was alive.
Then, as a result of a police sting, Niel was arrested for killing her. He claimed that she came at him with a knife and he accidentally killed her. I’m not even going to try and dispute it, although I highly doubt his story. What pisses me off is that, even if it was an accident, he still folded her body into a bag, carried her to a dump spot and let her stay there for 12 MONTHS while we searched for her. His friends and family were her friends and family. I pit this, and I pit the judges sentence. In spite of the fact that the judge disbelieved his story, he was aquitted of manslaughter, but he was convicted for improperly disposing of a body, and two days ago he was sentenced to 18 months in jail. 18 MONTHS?
I don’t understand how this happened! 18 months doesn’t seem like justice to me, but I’m trying not to be reactionary.
This is my first pitting. Appropriate references can be found here:
Don’t pit the legal system. Pit the dumbass cops in the Interior. Kelowna cops are some of the most idiotic badge-wearing hicks ever born.
You do realize that relying on the ‘Mr. Big’ scenario was the most closely guarded secret in Canadian policedom? That pretty much the only way Canadian cops have managed to arrest anyone on a crime that was unsolved for more than three months was to try and indoctrinate their suspect in a ‘gang’, and get the suspect to brag about the crime to ‘Mr. Big’?
Police have been using the ‘Mr. Big’ scenario for decades, but every time it came up in court, they were able to convince a judge to seal that part of the testimony so it couldn’t be mentioned in the press. Until two or three years ago, when a judge finally said it’s a stupid idea, a stupid way to catch criminals, and there’s nothing about it that deserves to be kept secret.
It’s a sad tale, and I’m sorry for the loss you’ve gone through.
Let’s go through your concerns about the justice system step by step.
First, the fact that he was the only one living with her at the time is nowhere near evidence of anything. After all, she could have gone off on her own, she could have been attacked while walking home, etc.
Second, in Canada the standard of proof for criminal cases is proof beyone a reasonable doubt, as in other democracies with the common law tradition, like Britain and the U.S. It is intentionally skewed in favour of the accused and against the power of the state. If the Crown has not convinced the trier of fact (either a jury or a judge) that the accused committed the crime, then the accused is entitled to be acquitted. That’s a very important protection in our criminal system against the possibilty of a police state. We accept it even knowing that people who may have done it will be acquitted as a result.
Here, the accused admitted killing her, but said it was in self-defence because she came after him with a knife. The accused doesn’t have to prove that he acted in self-defence. He’s only required to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of fact. The judge said that after hearing the accused, he was left with a reasonable doubt whether that was what happened. In that case, the judge was required to acquit.
So the only charge against the accused that led to a conviction was offering an indignity to a dead body: Criminal Code, s. 182 (b). The penalty for that is no more than five years. It’s rare for people to get the maximum sentence unless there are aggravating factors such as a lengthy criminal record, particularly one for the same offence. Absent a record, incarceration of 18 months isn’t an unusual sentence, in my opinion. The court had acquitted him of manslaughter, and couldn’t take that into account in the sentence for offering an indignity to the body. It’s not an aggravating factor that you’ve been acquitted of a related charge.
I’d be wanting to complain more about the prosecutor. Frankly, IANAL, but if I couldn’t convince a jury that the [obviously evil] defendant who admitted stabbing her and tossed her body in hiding wasn’t guilty of murder, I would just plain suck.
I assume from your confidence in asserting this opinion that you’ve run a number of jury trials and understand how the onus is always on the Crown? and that you’re aware that there’s a well-trained defence lawyer on the other side, working hard to raise a reasonable doubt? and that on the facts of this case, it appears to have come down to the credibility of the accused in telling his story to the court?
But I’d still be willing to bet I could convince twelve average joes this guy did it and no “self defense”. Course, it would help either way if there were any phsyical evidence to show. But as I said, if I can’t convince them the guy did it, I’d swear off lawyering (hey, wait, IANAL!).
But truth be told I meant in more of a shock and confusion sense than a statement of fact.
I guess I can understand that the judge couldn’t prove that she hadn’t come after him with a knife. But, wouldn’t they have to prove a predisposed tendancy of violence in the relationship?
The idea that she came after him with a knife after he found out she was cheating on him? Strange. And I talked to my brother and her friends, and they said their relationship was not violent. She was maybe 5’7" and all of a hundred pounds. He had a black belt in karate. Surely he could have imobilized her without killing her? Adn since when do we take killers on their word?
But my major beef is that he let us go on thinking she had just taken off. And I guess the legal system can’t fix that.
It’s not the judge that proves anything. It’s the Crown that has to prove it. If the Crown has not proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge is required to acquit.
Not necessarily. Every case turns on its own facts. Some relationships are violent, others aren’t, but in the right situations, people can snap. You can’t say in advance that it’s impossible for a couple with no history of violence to get into a violent situation.
Those are all good points and I’m sure the Crown explored them thoroughly in cross-examining the accused. However, it sounds like this case really came down to the testimony of the accused and his credibility. The judge appears to have had a reasonable doubt.
We can’t pre-suppose that because someone admits to killing another person, they are not worthy of belief. The presumption of innocence plays a role here, plus the fact that killing another person is not always a crime.
The defence of self-defence, if accepted, means that the individual has not committed any crime. We cannot say in advance that anyone who admits to having killed another person is not worthy of belief. (For example, if we had such a rule, how would a police officer who says he killed someone coming at him with a knife ever be acquitted? Yet we put police in dangerous situations and expect them to defend themselves, with terminal force if necessary.)
The right of full answer and defence means that the accused can testify and put his side of the story out. Whether he’s believed or not depends on the judge or jury’s assessment of his credibilty, in the overall context of the case.
But what physical evidence was there in this case? None. And in any event, physical evidence showing that he killed her does not invalidate his defence of self-defence, because he admitted to killing her. The only reason is why he killed her - and there was only one living witness to that point, able to testify in court. That’s a very difficult case to prove murder or manslaughter.
I was involved in a similar case once, from the defence side, and when the accused admits to contact with the body and advances an alternative explanation, it negates much of the value of the physical evidence.
Thanks for taking my reply in good spirits. I was a bit grumpy.
I was a bit grumpy.