Today I attended this murder trial that I have been following and Norris Ponce's lawyer, Ian Garber, was finishing his closing arguments. The other two lawyers and the Crown have already done their closing arguments.
Danny Simao was one of the Crowns's "key witnesses." The burden is on the Crown to satisfy the jury that Ponce knew that Monkman was planning to cause harm or death to the victim at the club. If the jury is unsure about whether Simao's testimony is accurate or not, they cannot convict, because that means they have doubt as to the guilt. Simao's testimony frequently showed inconsistences. The detectives said that Simao put his children in his home when they came to talk to him, Simao said he put them in the backyard. Detectives said he gave a wife a kiss before going to the police station, Simao said that never happened. Why is their evidence different? Because Danny Simao is unreliable. The detectives also never told him the facts about the murder, yet he said they did. Do you accept what two police officers are saying, or Danny Simao? You cannot accept some parts of Simao's testimony that support the Crown and reject others. You either decide he is unreliable or not. Ian Garber suggests that Simao is lying. "Why he lied, is not important, what's important is that he lied. Why he's inaccurate is not important, it's the fact that he was inaccurate and why he is unreliable is not important, it's the fact that he is simply unreliable." He suggests that the conversation that Simao claimed happened in the SUV about Monkman causing harm to somebody, never happened.
If Simao had heard that Monkman was going to harm somebody, he would not have gone to the hot dog cart, like he did. He would have taken it seriously and left or called police. His conduct makes no sense in light of what he claims happened in the vehicle.
At the preliminary hearing, Simao said that he only heard the word "juk" said in the SUV but at trial he said he heard "gut and stab" and claims at the prelim that he never heard those words.
Simao's testimony is inconsistent and contradicting.
It is not possible to conclude that anyone in the SUV knew that Monkman had a knife and intended to cause harm.
The victim was acting aggressively towards many people at the club and gestured to the man in the SUV. Ponce who was standing on the corner, did not provoke the victim in any way. No punches were thrown and Ponce was backing away from the victim, as he came forward.
Bo knife was ever found or was ever searched for and their is absolutely no evidence that Ponce did anything related to aiding or abetting the murder. If Simao had really seen and heard what he claims, his testimony should have been consistent, truthful and reliable.
Just because these three men were charged, does not mean anything. That is not evidence that they did it.
These men are presumed innocent until proven guilty and they have not been proven guilty, in my opinon.
Their is no evidence that Ponce assisted or encouraged Monkman in any way to commit the crime.
Just because the Crown makes a claim, does mean its true. Their may be no facts to support it and juries can only accept admissible evidence. Their is no evidence that Ponce knew what was going to happen, if Monkman was going to harm somebody or even played a role. He did not aid or abet. He didnt even know that somebody had been stabbed. All of the witnesses said he was not present when the stabbing occurred.
The Crown did not prove Ponce's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and did not satisfy their burden. Therefore, the jury must find Norris Ponce not guilty, according to the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment