Inmate made breakthrough in prison, court told

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 01/04/2021 (1845 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

BRANDON — Michael Bridges witnessed serious abuse and was neglected in his childhood, issues that ultimately followed him to the night he murdered 18-year-old Erin Chorney and buried her in another person’s grave, a Manitoba courtroom heard Wednesday.

Bridges was convicted in 2005 of first-degree murder in the 2002 killing. The then-24-year-old was sentenced to 25 years in prison without parole.

Wednesday marked the third day of the hearing to determine whether he can apply for parole early under a now-repealed section of the Criminal Code (the so-called “faint hope clause”). It will not determine if Bridges will be granted parole, if successful.

To date, he has spent approximately 17 years in prison.

Bridges talked about witnessing his stepfather verbally and physically abuse his mother, during high-intensity family violence programming sessions at Stony Mountain Institution, correctional program facilitator Tara Verbling testified.

“I think he would acknowledge he has poor relationship skills… There were some things that were negative from his childhood that he was carrying and just not coping well and not behaving well and not managing his life in a healthy way,” she said under questioning from defence lawyer Ryan Amy.

“Also, issues of abandonment, of rejection that he felt from his mother. His father wasn’t present in his life, so there were issues around rejection.”

Bridges sat in the prisoners’ box, flanked by two Manitoba sheriff’s officers, behind the defence table. He sat facing forward listening to testimony, but at times listened with his head down.

Members of Chorney’s family sat behind the Crown’s table.

The program required Bridges and other inmates to discuss issues in their families, and how they played into the crimes for which they were serving time in prison, Verbling said.

Initially, he was defensive, didn’t trust facilitators, and didn’t want to speak in-depth about his feelings, she said.

“(He was) talking about things in a generic kind of way, not necessarily applying it to himself, not necessarily applying it to his life… I would say probably just trying to do enough and seeing if that’s the limit, if that’s acceptable or not,” Verbling said.

As the program and years went on, Bridges made significant progress, she testified.

Eventually, Bridges made a breakthrough during a one-on-one session with another facilitator, which is when he started opening up more and acknowledging the impact the killing had on the victim and her family.

“He talked about witnessing family violence, again to his mom and how powerless that made him feel and how disgusted he was. He did talk about how he became… the worst thing he could think of,” Verbling said.

“Basically, he was disgusted with himself that he was repeating that behaviour and he was becoming an abuser himself.”

During cross-examination by Crown attorney Joel Myskiw, Verbling said Bridges’ issues with rejection and feeling abandoned followed him to the night he killed Chorney.

Verbling said he couldn’t cope with the fact she was ending the relationship.

Myskiw also raised the fact some people can fake emotions or fake cry.

“I’m not talking about small things, this is not him covering up a parking ticket,” Myskiw said.

“He’s capable of covering up the murder of his girlfriend. He’s able to hide the fact that he hid her body in an existing grave and no one found out. He destroyed all of the evidence of a murder and then after that, he went on to live a normal life.”

Verbling said she believed Bridges’ emotion was real, in the more than a decade she spent working with him.

Basil Lewin, a building service technician at Stony Mountain Institution, also testified for the defence. He said he worked with Bridges in the carpentry program, adding Bridges was “almost a model prisoner.”

The faint hope clause was repealed from the Criminal Code in December 2011, but Bridges can still apply, as he was convicted prior to its removal. It allowed offenders sentenced to life imprisonment with a “parole eligibility period of greater than 15 years to apply for early parole once they have served 15 years.”

The hearing is scheduled to continue today.

— Brandon Sun