Part of the final summation from defence lawyer Adrian Brooks at Robert Pickton’s trial in B.C. Supreme Court in New Westminster, B.C., on six counts of first-degree murder:
“Ms. Joesbury may have been killed by a .22 or .25-calibre weapon. That .25-calibre weapon was not found at the farm.
The bullets recovered from the remains of Ms. Abotsway and Ms. Wilson were not matched to any gun.
As I understood the evidence, it was that 100b (a gun with a dildo fitted over the barrel) could not be eliminated.
The guns that should have been compared to important bullets were not compared.
The spent bullets in site B (the slaughterhouse) came from a .22-calibre gun that is not one of those found at 953 Dominion.
So, of three guns, obviously there is another .22 that is being used inside site B. Where did it go, who had it, when did they have it, in what circumstances did they have it? These are all unknowns.
Don’t assume too much, don’t jump to quick and hasty conclusions because you have one piece of evidence. Compare it to the entirety, and when you do and take into account these kinds of conclusions, you’ll see that the firearms evidence doesn’t take you very far at all.”
---
On the forensics linking Pickton to the six women:>
“This is obviously important. The Crown case, obviously from what it describes, puts or attempts to put Mr. Pickton as close as possible to the six women.
I’m going to go through some evidence and in a moment you’ll see that evidence, you’ll see what it is and what really stands out is how limited that evidence is.
If indeed Mr. Pickton was guilty of these crimes, you would certainly think there would be significant linkages to Willie Pickton.”
---
On the forensic matches of Pat Casanova:
“Inside of a door to site B you will remember that Mr. Mellis testified that he gave instructions with regard to where blood spatter analysis ought to be done.
Obviously that’s significant and we know why that’s significant, given what the Crown says happened in site B, given what the Crown is saying what they want to find by way of evidence or expect to find by way of evidence.
This is the inside of the door...
Here we add, against the east wall, we have the two shelf objects ... that has a clipboard in it. Right next to it, earrings that create a match to the profile of Joesbury, a plastic bag that contains a match to a profile of Joesbury. We know as well we have the clipboard and a watch nearby, the two knives nearby, wash tub, work gloves, etc.
(Jurors heard that the watch was matched to Pickton, but the items contained the DNA of Pat Casanova.)
Then as well have on the right-hand side, which is extremely important, Wilson and Casanova not excluded from the barn door, a mixed DNA profile.
So here, there was two swabs taken, one was just Casanova, the next one numerically swab 10, mixed DNA profile, Casanova and Wilson are not excluded as possible contributors.
Please note the number one in 240,000. That is significant for you to take into account.
Now again please match this up, think for a moment what this means.
Is it being suggested, or can the Crown seriously suggest to you that when it comes to that kind of swab of particular stains that are shown on the door, when that’s done, is it seriously going to be suggested to you that one landed there and the next one landed there some time later?
Could that seriously be suggested? Ladies and gentlemen, that is not the case. I suggest to you that you draw the inference that this association is probably the strongest, indeed it is the strongest of Mr. Casanova. It is very, very important to understand the evidence. It is stronger than anything that relates to Willie Pickton and I suggest to you that makes it very important for you to analyze that, and think about it.
Think about what Mr. Mellis said. Why are they looking at the door, why are they going there, for the very reason they might get a result just like this.”
--
Summing up the link with Casanova:
“What we have as we deal with this evidence of Mr. Casanova is it associates him to sites, particular places, it associates him to women. It does so in a way that I suggest to you is very important to take into account. Take into account please how it is stronger than the evidence against Mr. Pickton.
That is probably the key thing in terms of what inferences you are likely to draw. And I suggest to you, when you do that, see the importance of evidence as it relates to Mr. Casanova as compared to Mr. Pickton. Put that into the mix when you’re saying to yourself does this forensic evidence provide the Crown the solid foundation they say it does.”
---
“I expect the Crown will say to you that exhibits were found very close in the north end of the property, because everything is in the north end, and Willie lives there, he must be guilty, right?
It really isn’t as simple as that. It can’t be as simple as that. Take into account that when the police arrive there they have a snapshot in time.
In fact, the movement of items coming from other areas, other places, everything moving around stops at the moment there is the police seizure but that doesn’t mean that they never moved around, they never came there from somewhere else.
The idea that just because they are there at that time does not tell you and does not provide you any compelling evidence at all of Mr. Pickton’s guilt.”
---
“The position of the defence is you do not look just at site A and work your way out and say you’ve solved it.
“That is not the way that you are going to understand the evidence in this case.
The police investigation started that way, they started at site A, the trailer, and they worked their way out and everything went its way out. The exhibits were found as they worked their way out but as they worked their way out what is the thoroughness of what happens, what is the thoroughness of the results that are found there?
Just because the focus and the spotlight has been put on site A don’t assume that gives you a complete answer.”
---
“Remember how we started this case. We started this case with a quote from the opening about exactly what the Crown was saying as to how Willie Pickton became the person who was identified as the person who picked them up, who drove them, who killed them and then dismembered them. You’ll recall that quote from the beginning of the case.
The Crown theory as stated in that way has the following problems with it. It is this:
I have reviewed with you the evidence of dismemberment and say to you it bears no resemblances to the practices of Willie Pickton in his pig-butchering business.
There is no evidence of any of these women being in Willie’s vehicles.
The evidence of Willie’s association with the six women ranges from the non-existent to the minimal, in all cases less than the association of Pat Casanova to these women.
If at the end of the day you say to yourself Pat Casanova means nothing to this case, well fair enough, then the forensic association to Willie Pickton must fall as well.
The forensic evidence on the handcuffs, belts or other restraints is not, can only be described as weak. It doesn’t provide you with any information that assists you. The physical evidence of strangulation or restraint we say is non-existent, that being part and parcel of Bellwood’s evidence.
The firearms evidence is equivocal and it points to the use of guns which are not found on the farm, that surely is significant for your consideration.
No specific saw is matched to any of the cuts which were made in this case. There is a type that forms part and parcel of the Crown’s opinion evidence but not a specific saw that is matched to any of the cuts made.
And in particular when we come to a key set of exhibits that is the buckets we say that association of Willie Pickton to those buckets or to those freezers is weaker than that of other evidence, other evidence that I have already referred to some of which will be referred to in just a moment.
Before doing that, I want to go to the fourth point and I want to go to what the defence says is missing from the Crown’s theory. Crowns’ theories are not something in which the Crown puts their feet into blocks of cement but what they are are something that Crown says ‘this is how it all fits together’ and what we say is if you are going to say how it fits together, then take into account everything.
Don’t pick and choose, choose it all, look at it all, because any way you say the evidence should fit together has to take into account all of that evidence
We say it does not account for all of the forensic evidence, and particularly it does not take into account the evidence with respect to Dinah Taylor.”
---
On DNA found on a lipstick matching both Dinah Taylor and Brenda Wolfe:>
“These are not two DNA results that are side by side on a wall, these are two DNA results from the same item of makeup.
That is an association of Dinah Taylor to Brenda Wolfe that is extremely important for you to take into account.
Next screen shows the next item of lipstick that is here. This is a close-up of it, and what do we have? We have again area AA, the tip of it yields a DNA profile consistent with two contributors, Dinah Taylor and Brenda Wolfe are identified.
Area AB, consistent with two major contributors, major component was matched to the known profile of Brenda Wolfe.
Why does Dinah Taylor have Brenda Wolfe’s lipstick? What is she doing with Brenda Wolfe’s lipstick? That’s the inference and the question I ask you to draw and consider very seriously in the course of your deliberations
The next screen. On the far left-hand side we have another piece of makeup. Area AA yielded a mixed DNA profile, major component matched to the known profile of Andrea Joesbury, the female minor component not identified
So here is Dinah Taylor. The conclusion jumps out she has taken over the makeup of other women, consider that, and consider that when you are asking yourself whether the Crown theory that they have put before you has been proven.”
---
“This is a rosary, It is located in site A, room four, it has Dinah Taylor’s DNA on it. The next screen will show you the association which exists with regards to this rosary.
This is exhibit 108, again we come back to that as it relates to Mona Wilson and as it relates to this particular exhibit.
You will see that Ada Wilson, the sister of Mona Wilson, viewed a photograph, a photograph of this rosary and that she, Ada Wilson, recognized the object depicted in the photograph as a necklace and cross pendant which she observed Mona Wilson wearing on many occasions, including when Mona Wilson was in St. Paul’s hospital during the summer of 2001.
This is the photograph which she observed so you can see they are talking about the same thing.
This evidence about Dinah Taylor keeps on coming and coming and coming.
The association to the women gets stronger and stronger and stronger. It is very significant to take into account. This isn’t some bus transfer or something, this is an item of jewelry. One that she is seen, one that is seen associated with Mona Wilson. Do you think Mona Wilson just said to Dinah Taylor that she was just going to give it to her? Is that likely for something that has its personal connection to Mona Wilson? We say that you don’t draw that inference, that in fact this is important to Mona Wilson and this is something that has Dinah Taylor’s DNA on it. That is critically important for you to take into account.”
---
On the police saying they had no evidence to charge anyone else in the case. (Dinah Taylor, Pat Casanova and Lynn Ellingsen were all arrested, but never charged.):
“You can’t do that when you look at the totality of the evidence.
With regard to Dinah Taylor, you’ve already seen the forensic evidence. You have seen already, how is linked to four of the women on the indictment -- Brenda Wolfe, Joesbury, Wilson, Abotsway.
How can that be said to be no evidence?
How can that ever be no evidence? You’re going to hear in a moment, I’m going to go through Ms. Houston’s evidence, you remember that as well, what she had to say, no evidence.
You heard as well and this is something to bear in mind, you heard as well the statements, and you have talked about the statements and everything that was said during the course of the formal interrogation of Willie Pickton.
It is something of which obviously Adam would know and I would suggest Clary would know as well.
We have a situation in which the conversation occurred and when I refer to it on page 206 in the formal interrogation, where they are talking about Dinah Taylor admitting that she killed someone. That kind of conversation leads to the conclusion of no evidence? How can that possibly be so? How can that possibly ever be so?
So that is the kind of mindset I ask you to take into account here. It is very, very important.
Think when you’re thinking of Dinah Taylor, think of the words that she used to Gina Houston that Gina Houston reported to you. We’re obviously going to ask you that these words are with reference to Joesbury.
‘I’m going to kill that fucking bitch.’
Can you imagine for a moment if Willie Pickton had said such a thing? If Willie Pickton had said such a thing that would be ringing from the rooftops according to the Crown, they would be telling you that again and again, yet this is in regard to Dinah Taylor.
You have heard evidence this morning, saw the picture of the bloody sweat pants you saw that some of the stains, some of the large stains there were not even sent for DNA testing. That is surely significant to you to know.
The Casanova evidence - that again is described as no evidence.
Take into account Casanova lying to the police, what did he lie about? he lied about Angela Joesbury we say, that has to be absolutely key.
The Crown probably will talk about Willie Pickton’s relationship with sex trade workers.
Casanova has that association with sex trade workers too.
He has that association, yet for Casanova it’s described as no evidence.
We’ve seen forensic evidence results as it relates to east wall in site B, how Mr. Casanova is there. For him when there are more exhibits, it’s no evidence. For Mr. Pickton it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. That is very very important for you to take into account.
Dave Pickton reached a high point in no evidence when you heard the cross-examination of Almas. You’ll remember that cross-examination because the words of Almas as I understand it were nothing that indicates that Dave Pickton was involved with any offence whatsoever.
Nothing.
You heard that cross-examination, you heard everything that Mr. Ritchie went through, it went on for hours, going through the details of everything that was out there and that is described as no evidence.
We have talked already about female 58, there’s other elements as well too.
Consider there were some pills which were located in the bedroom of Dave Pickton, they were given an exhibit number they were pink pills receiver from the head board.
There is information in exhibit 77, which are a series of admissions, that relate to these pills, it’s under the tab site F, page 32.
Those pills are shown in that photograph. You heard the evidence of Crown toxicology expert Heather Dinn who talked about the strong sedative effect of these pills.
She also told you something else. The drug being found in DP headboard is significant enough but it was also detected in remains of Andrea Joesbury. This again is no evidence.
We have significant evidence about Dave Pickton.
We have the evidence of his controlling influence on Willie Pickton, all of this seems to amount to nothing in the eyes of the police, and we say to you that kind of attitude being brought to bear in to an investigation of this seriousness surely doesn’t do justice to it, it surely must cause you the greatest of concern.
We known about Dave Pickton’s fingerprint, we know about V3, you’ve heard evidence about Yolanda Dyck.
Yolanda Dyck testified that she met up with Abotsway. How did she describe the person who was with Abotsway? About 5’4, full beard.
We heard from Sandy Humeny that Dave Pickton was 5’5 and has always had a beard.
This too is no evidence.
When you consider what you have heard in this case, it is extremely significant evidence.
Consider as well how people were treated. Consider how Lynn Ellingsen was treated, she was treated very well, she in fact was arrested for many counts of murder. After she was arrested for many counts of murder, she gave the statement that set her evidence in motion. That is extremely significant to think about the pressure that was upon her and that was placed upon her.
That is extremely significant evidence for you take into account.
What is the response of the Crown to all this that we have gone through?
Their response to all of this is not only did Dave Pickton not get called by the Crown, Dinah Taylor is not called, she is not called to the stand.
With all of what we have are they still maintaining there is no evidence so they don’t call her?
Does that make sense to you, it can’t make any sense at all to you.
When you see the suggestion of no evidence, when you see all the evidence that is there and they don’t call Dinah Taylor, when it is their burden?
What they have done is they have shown you as clearly as can be that there are issues here in which you are not getting the whole picture, the whole picture that ought to give you the very serious concerns about the Crown case.”
----
On a conversation Pickton had with his friend Gina Houston, which the jurors heard about during the trial:
“Willie told her that there was one and two or three, four and five or six bodies. He told her they were buried three and a half feet or something. The Crown is obviously going to rely on that to say that that helps prove their case.
But think about it closely, analyze evidence closely, all evidence in this case very closely, when you do you will see that it does not do so.
Let’s look at for a moment.
The bodies are buried three and a half feet deep, you know that’s wrong, you know that’s not the evidence, you know that’s not how the bodies were found. But here’s Willie Pickton’ saying that. He is saying this because he doesn’t have the knowledge of a murderer. That’s why he is saying that. He doesn’t have that level of knowledge, he has from whatever source, knowledge that says that, three and a half feet, inconsistent with physical evidence.
He doesn’t know the number of bodies. If he’s the murderer he knows the number of bodies, surely, he knows that. He doesn’t know that. He doesn’t know that again because he’s not the murderer.
He doesn’t have the knowledge of the murderer.
Whatever it was, whether he wasn’t told accurate information, or he was told accurate information and didn’t process it properly, whatever it was, he does not have the knowledge of the murderer.”
PREVIOUS
