Derksen killer to learn fate April 27

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 11/03/2011 (5359 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

IT’S no mystery Mark Grant will be handed a life sentence for the 1984 killing of 13-year-old Candace Derksen. The only question that remains is how long he will have to spend behind bars before he is eligible for parole.

The answer is expected to come on April 27, when Grant appears before Chief Justice Glenn Joyal to be sentenced in the high-profile case.

Grant, 47, was convicted last month of second-degree murder. His teen victim was grabbed off the street Nov. 30, 1984, while walking home from school, bound with rope and left to freeze to death inside a brickyard shed. Her body was found in the shed Jan. 17, 1985, after an exhaustive search that included hundreds of volunteers.

Jurors spent three days weighing the evidence against Grant, which largely consisted of DNA evidence that finally cracked the case in 2007.

Grant must spend at least 10 years in prison before he is eligible for parole, but Joyal will have the option of raising that number as high as 25 years. The Crown will no doubt bring up the fact Grant is a notorious convicted sex offender who has spent much of his adult life in prison.

Grant is expected to appeal the jury’s verdict, citing alleged errors made by the judge. He has 30 days from his sentencing date to file the paperwork.

During the trial, Grant’s lawyer, Saul Simmonds, attacked the Crown’s case by accusing it of using “bad science” to try to solve the mystery. He said police ignored certain evidence that pointed away from Grant, contaminated the original crime scene and mishandled key exhibits such as the twine used to tie Candace up.

Crown attorney Brian Bell told jurors their job would be relatively simple if they ignored the “red herrings” being thrown their way. He said DNA evidence clearly connects Grant to the slaying, with only a one-in-50-million chance the genetic profile is from someone else. He said there is no reasonable explanation of how Grant’s DNA could be at the crime scene if he didn’t commit the crime.

Three pubic hairs were found on or near Candace’s body, although police have said she wasn’t sexually assaulted. Four scalp hairs that appeared to have been lightly bleached near the roots were on Candace’s clothing. There is evidence Grant had dyed his hair around the same time and his profile couldn’t be excluded. As well, DNA extracted from the twine was found to be a maternal match to Grant. All of his siblings were later excluded as the donor.

www.mikeoncrime.com