Just because a jury convicted three men, does not mean they are definitely guilty of the crime..

Accomplice to appeal
The three men convicted in the 2006 stabbing death of 24-year-old Red River College student Minh Hong Huynh were all handed prison terms Monday, with one already planning to appeal.
Glen Monkman, 39, was convicted by a jury last month of second-degree murder for fatally stabbing Huynh outside the former Main Street bar Club Desire on April 30, 2006. Carlos Tavares, 30, and Norris Ponce, 31, were convicted by the same jurors of manslaughter for their roles in the crime, which the Crown said involved “encouraging and assisting” Monkman.
Justice Brenda Keyser sentenced all three to jail time Monday.
Monkman was handed an automatic life sentence, as are all offenders convicted of murder. He will not be eligible for parole for 12 years, which is part way between the Crown’s suggestion of 15 and the defence’s preference of the minimum 10. Keyser heard the sentencing arguments earlier this month.
Tavares was given a seven-year sentence, minus two years for time served, leaving five to go.
Ponce got a four-year sentence minus two years for time served. Both of their sentences fell between the terms suggested by the Crown and defence at the sentencing hearing.
Tavares told the gallery as he was leaving court Monday that he hopes to appeal. He did not say whether he intends to appeal his conviction or his sentence.
During the trial earlier this year, court heard the accused believed Huynh had previously stabbed Tavares at a wedding social.
Tavares’ cousin Danny Simao testified the men had plotted to go to Club Desire and attack Huynh when they learned he was there the night of the fatal stabbing. Jurors heard evidence Huynh was on steroids and high on cocaine when he started picking fights with several people outside the nightclub, including a man believed to be Ponce. Witnesses said that’s when Monkman intervened and stabbed Huynh in the face and chest.
The 24-year-old later died from his wounds.

I am definitely seeing some bias in this article. First of all, the title says "accomplice to appeal," when it should say "alleged." Just because a jury convicted this man, does make him 100% guilty as I feel that the Crown did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Second, "for their roles in the crime," also implies that these men definitely HAD roles in the crime, when they may not have. Again, just because 12 people "agree" that they did, does not mean it's 100% true.

This article only states the Crown's opinion that these men were "encouraging and assisting Monkman." Nowhere, does it state what the Defence lawyers argued, which is also important information, in order for a reader to make an informed opinion. 

The article talks about what Simao testified but does present any of the counter arguments made by Defence lawyers, which is biased. There were countless contradictions and inconsistencies in his testimony and defence argued that he was unreliable and 100% untrustworthy. This should have been mentioned. 

The article also does not include any background information on the three accused and how the sentence will greatly impact their families. They are victims also. All of these men have families and children and they showed remorse. 

Three sentenced in stabbing death 
Three men were convicted of killing a Winnipeg student outside a downtown bar, but they left court Monday with vastly different sentences for their roles in the 2006 attack.
Glen Monkman, 39, was given a mandatory life sentence with no chance of parole for at least 12 years after being found guilty by a jury last month of second-degree murder.
Carlos Tavares, 31, received five years in prison in addition to one year of time already spent in custody. Norris Ponce, 31, was given two years in jail, in addition to one year of time served. Both men were convicted of manslaughter.
All three accused had originally been charged with first-degree murder.
Ming Hong Huynh, 24, was knifed outside Club Desire on Bannatyne Avenue in April 2006.
Monkman admitted stabbing Huynh four times in the chest and cheek with a small knife while horrified bystanders watched, but claimed he should only be found guilty of manslaughter based on the fact he was provoked.
Ponce was accused of distracting Huynh on the street before the stabbing. Tavares was accused of driving the getaway vehicle. Lawyers for both had argued there was no credible evidence linking them to the attack.
The key issue at trial was whether the jury believed the testimony of the Crown's star witness, Danny Simao, who claims he overheard a plan to kill Huynh while inside a car with the three accused. Defence lawyers argued at trial that Simao was a proven liar.
The Crown argued the accused planned the attack as revenge for another stabbing that happened at a wedding social in March 2006.
Before the attack, court heard Huynh was wandering around shirtless outside the club. His girlfriend, Angie Pfeifer, testified Huynh used steroids and cocaine. The Red River College business administration student was intoxicated and looking to fight anyone who crossed his path, she said.

The headline is biased in this article. It says "three sentenced in stabbing death" which implies that all three men were involved in the death, when really, that may not be the case. 
It also does elaborate on the contradictions and inconsistencies in Simao's testimony and only presents the Crown's opinion. 
In the beginning it says, ".. the their roles in the 2006 attack" which also implies that they are all guilty of playing a role, when that may not be true. Just because a jury convicts, does make it a definite fact. That is the author's opinion that they all played a role. 

As I said in my previous blog posts, I completely disagree with the verdicts first of all. How can a jury convict, when the key witness is unreliable and untrustworthy? I figure that some of them must have conformed to the dominant position of the group, because I don't see how any reasonable person could believe anything he said. Ponce and Tavares should have been acquitted. 

I also disagree with the sentences of Ponce and Tavares. Ponce has a wife and two children to support. I believe 100% that he was not involved in this and did play any role. He told me specifically that he was afraid and nervous of being wrongfully convicted. Guess what? He was. Ponce had been on bail for at least a year prior to the trial and followed all of his conditions. This shows that the Judge should have considered all other alternatives before imprisonment, as stated in the Criminal Code, and realized that prison was not the least restrictive sanction. I believe that a conditional sentence of 2 years should have been imposed. 

I also disagree with Tavares' sentence of 5 years. I also believe that he had no role in this attack and should also have been sentenced to a conditional sentence.  
 

Three men sentenced for alleged roles in 2006 stabbing death

I wrote this article about the three men sentenced (Ponce, Monkman and Tavares) today, as I felt both newspaper stories (Winnipeg Sun and Winnipeg Free Press) were highly biased and did not include enough information from both sides, so here is my article, which presents each side of the argument.

Three men were sentenced to different prison terms for their alleged roles in a stabbing death outside a Winnipeg nightclub in 2006.

            Glen Monkman, 39, was given a mandatory life sentence with parole eligibility set at 12 years after being convicted last month of second degree murder by a jury. The Crown was seeking 15 years for parole eligibility while his lawyer sought 10 years.

            Carlos Tavares, 31, received 5 years in prison in addition to one year in custody of time served, after jurors found him guilty of manslaughter. He will be eligible for parole after serving 1 and a half years. The Crown was seeking 13 years in prison.  

            Norris Ponce, 31, was given 2 years in prison in addition to 2 years time served. When the verdict was delivered last month, Ponce addressed the court by saying, "Not a day goes by where I don't think of what I could have done." Ponce has no previous criminal record and had asked the court to be sentenced lightly in order for him to raise his two children and support his wife as she completes her education. Ponce had been on bail for a year prior to the trial, where he obeyed his conditions, which was why his lawyer argued for a community sentence. Ponce will be eligible for full parole in 8 months. The Crown was seeking 7 years.

       Monkman was originally charged with first degree murder and Ponce and Tavares of second degree murder.  

            Ming Huynh, 24, was stabbed outside Club Desire in Winnipeg on April 30, 2006, which caused his death. Monkman admitted stabbing Huynh four times in the chest and cheek amidst many bystanders. He claimed that he should only have been found guilty of manslaughter based on the fact he was provoked. The Crown accused Ponce of distracting Huynh on the street prior to the stabbing. His defence lawyer argued that Ponce was just another victim of Huynh's, as Huynh was intoxicated, aggressive and had started verbal disputes with numerous people that night. Huynh's girlfriend Angie Pfiefer testified that he used steroids and cocaine and was severely intoxicated on that night. The Crown accused Tavares of driving a getaway vehicle away from the stabbing. Lawyers for Ponce and Tavares argued that there was no credible evidence linking them to the attack and that they should have been acquitted. No murder weapon was ever recovered, but Monkman's blood was found inside the getaway vehicle.  

            The key issue during the trial was related to the testimony of the Crown's key witness, Danny Simao. He claims that the men discussed an attack on the victim prior to arriving at the club. He also claims that the murder weapon was dumped in a river, after the group fled the stabbing. The Crown argued that they planned the attack as revenge for another stabbing where Monkman was the victim, at a wedding social in March 2006. However, defence lawyers argued that the testimony was inconsistent as Simao changed his story repeatedly about what he saw and heard. They argued that his vomiting and retching on the witness stand was a good indicator he was lying. Monkman's lawyer claimed Simao was a 100% untrustworthy witness whose evidence should have been rejected. Simao had been intoxicated and admitted that much of that day was a blank to him and that doesn’t remember the details of the vehicle conversation. Defence lawyers questioned why Simao was seen purchasing food after arriving at the club, if he had actually heard of the harmful plan. All three lawyers suggested that it is because the conversation never took place and accused Simao of fabricating his story.  

 

Three men were sentenced for alleged roles in stabbing

Three men sentenced for roles in stabbing death

WINNIPEG — Three men were sentenced to much different prison terms Monday for their roles in a stabbing death outside a downtown Winnipeg bar

Glen Monkman, 39, was given a mandatory life sentence with no chance of parole for at least 12 years after being convicted last month of second-degree murder. The Crown was seeking to raise parole eligibility to 15 years, while defence lawyers wanted it to remain at the minimum of 10.

Carlos Tavares, 31, received five years in prison in addition to one year of time in custody after jurors found him guilty of manslaughter. The Crown was seeking eight more years behind bars.

Norris Ponce, 31, was given two years in jail years in addition to one year of time served. The Crown wanted five more years of prison.

All three men had originally been charged with first-degree murder, which carries an automatic sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years if convicted.

Ming Hong Huynh, 24, was knifed outside Club Desire on Bannatyne Avenue in April 2006.

Monkman admitted stabbing Huynh four times in the chest and cheek with a small knife while horrified bystanders watched but claimed he should only be found guilty of manslaughter based on the fact he was provoked.

Ponce was accused of distracting Huynh on the street before Monkman stabbed him. Tavares was accused of driving a getaway car, a cream-coloured Lincoln Navigator, away from the stabbing. Lawyers for both had argued there was no credible evidence linking them to the attack and they should have been acquitted entirely.

The key issue at trial was whether they believed the testimony of the Crown’s star witness, Danny Simao, who claims he overheard a plan to kill Huynh while inside a car with the three accused,

Defence lawyers argued at trial that Simao was a proven liar whose evidence should have been rejected.

No murder weapon was ever recovered. The Crown argued the accused planned the attack on Huynh as revenge for another stabbing that happened at a wedding social in March 2006.

Before the attack, court heard Huynh was wandering around shirtless outside the club. His girlfriend, Angie Pfeifer, testified Huynh used steroids and cocaine. The Red River College business administration student was intoxicated and looking to fight when he got into a fight with an Asian man alleged to be Ponce.

The first bias/problem in this article is the headline. It says "three men sentenced for roles in stabbing death." By saying this, assumes that they all played a role in the stabbing (which may not be true). Just because the men were convicted by a jury, does not mean that it is 100% true and that does not make it a FACT, which this headline implies/suggests. It should say "alleged."

This article does not allocate enough space to explain in detail, the contradictions in Simao's testimony, which were many and which could change readers' perspectives. It mentioned that the lawyers said that there was "no credible evidence linking them," but they failed to explain why and just how unreliable and unbelievable this witness really was. Readers are not getting the full picture of all the evidence. 

By only writing about the evidence of Simao's testimony which supports the Crown's theory and not the defence, sways readers to one side of the argument where they will come to believe the witness, simply because the media does not report counter/contradictory evidence of the testimony. 

The article mentioned the Crown's arguments but did not say much about the arguments of the 3 mens' defence lawyers, which is biased towards one side, and influencing the readers to take a certain position towards this case, which is one that the sentences were too lenient. This is not true and is giving the public a skewed perception. 

The article did not mention the fact that the victim had been attempting to fight with many people that night and was aggressive, intoxicated and provoking. Norris Ponce, was simply another person being victimized by this man, but the article paints Ponce as anything but a victim. 

This article also did not pay enough attention to the offenders' background, as they did with the victim. They did not receive a fair representation. They have children and families and that should have been mentioned because prison also had a significant impact on offenders' families and lives. It should have also mentioned the fact that Ponce has had no previous convictions and the criminal histories of the other offenders.

Also, after stating the sentences and then saying, "The Crown wanted this much more," implies that the sentences were too lenient, when in reality, they were too harsh (in my opinion)! The article does not state what sentences the defence were seeking. 

Three to jail in stabbing death 
The three men convicted in the 2006 stabbing death of 24-year-old Red River College student Minh Hong Huynh were all handed significant prison terms Monday afternoon.
Glen Monkman, 39, was convicted by a jury last month of second-degree murder for fatally stabbing Huynh outside the former Main Street bar Club Desire on April 30, 2006. Carlos Tavares, 30, and Norris Ponce, 31, were convicted by the same jurors of manslaughter for their roles in the crime, which the Crown said involved "encouraging and assisting" Monkman.
Justice Brenda Keyser sentenced all three to jail time Monday.
Monkman was handed an automatic life sentence, as are all offenders convicted of murder. He will not be eligible for parole for 12 years, which is part way between the Crown's suggestion of 15 and the defence's preference of 10. Keyser heard the sentencing arguments earlier this month.
Tavares was given a seven-year sentence, minus two years for time served, leaving five to go.
Ponce got a four-year sentence minus two years for time served. Both of their sentences fell between the terms suggested by the Crown and defence at the sentencing hearing.
Tavares told the gallery as he was leaving court Monday that he hopes to appeal. He did not say whether he hopes to appeal his conviction or his sentence.

By the headline saying "three to death in stabbing" implies and gives the impression that all three men were involved in this attack, when that may not be true. That is not based on fact, as two men played "roles" (which I think is untrue). It also only mentions the Crown's argument of the other 2 men encouraging Monkman and does not mention the defence argument, countering that. Like the WFP article, it does not mention anything about the background lives of these offenders, the contradictions in Simao's testimony, etc. and makes it appear as if all of these men are guilty, no question about it, which is not true. There was contradictory evidence and it fails to mention that.

My opinion?

I completely disagree with the sentences of Tavares and Ponce. I do feel that Monkman should have been found guilty of 2nd degree murder, but should have gotten no parole eligibility for 10 years not 12, as he may have been provoked by the victim. The article did not mention the victim's possible role his killing, such as the fact that he was acting aggressively and was provoking people and wanting to start a fight. 

I completely disagree with Ponce's sentence. He should have been acquitted in the first place, because Simao's testimony was completely unreliable and I don't see how any reasonable person would believe anything he said. He had been on bail for at least 2 years prior to the trial and had obeyed all of his conditions, came to court early everyday and was a productive and law abiding citizen. He also has children and a wife. I think that because his bail was successful, he should have been sentenced to a community sanction such as a conditional sentence. Just think of the damaging effect and impact prison will have on his children and wife? I feel horrible for them. In this case, I do not believe the judge considered all alternatives besides prison, which she should have. Ponce is not a dangerous man to society, is not violent in any way (because he never killed anybody, only allegedly played a "role") and is not high risk. I truly believe he was wrongfully convicted and sentenced. 

The same goes for Tavares. Simao's testimony should not have been believed. Ponce or Tavares claimed that they knew nothing of the killing and were not involved. Simao's testimony was the only thing that contradicted that, except for one problem: he was unreliable and unbelievable. Also, no other evidence corroborated Simao's testimony. What does that tell you? Tavares should have been acquitted also. I don't agree with his sentence and feel he should have been given a conditional sentence also.

The Crown did not prove Tavares/Ponce guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I left a comment about this story on the Winnipeg Free Press that read: I realize that the jury system is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system, but I also feel that there are many flaws in the jury system and just because a jury convicts an individual, does not make it a fact, that they committed the crime. Look at all the wrongfully convicted individuals who were also convicted by juries.

Also, from studying social psychology, know that when one person has a dominant position, others may be influenced to conform, even when they may not agree. It begs the question, is the jury really unanimous?

Something to think about.

I also believe that there are many factors which influence a jury's ultimate decision. Some could have read biased media reports or internet articles, the fact that the accuseds were in custody and in handcuffs paints the portrayal of guilt and not of innocence until proven guilty, juries have no formal training in the law and how to interpret it and apply it to the case. 

If we were to assume that when a jury makes a unanimous finding of guilt, that they are always correct and the accused is guilty, there would be a lot less wrongful convictions being discovered. Juries make mistakes all the time. Just think of the wrongfully convicted individuals in Canada, who had their cases decided by juries. It happens and we cannot assume anything.   

Sentencing hearing for Monkman, Tavares and Ponce: Crown wants lengthy sentences

Crown favours lengthy jail terms for killers 

Convicted killer asks Judge for leniency

- The Crown is seeking lengthy jail terms for three men convicted last week for their roles in the 2006 stabbing death of 24-year-old Red River College student Minh Hong Huynh — an act Huynh’s sister said has destroyed her world.

- Glen Monkman, 39, was convicted by a jury last Friday of second-degree murder for fatally stabbing Huynh outside the former Main Street bar Club Desire on April 30, 2006. 

- Carlos Tavares, 30, and Norris Ponce, 31, were convicted by the same jurors of manslaughter for their roles in the crime, which the Crown says involved “encouraging and assisting” Monkman.

- Justice Brenda Keyser heard arguments Thursday about how long the three men should be imprisoned.

- The hearing was an emotional one, with two of the convicted men choking up while addressing court and several gallery members crying openly as Crown prosecutor Dale Schille read aloud a victim impact statement prepared by Huynh’s sister Thanh Huynh, who now lives in the U.S.

- Thanh Huynh described crying herself to sleep and barely eating for months after her older brother died.

- “My face was pale and white as a ghost and I had nightmares every night,” her statement read. “I don’t wish this upon anyone because it’s the worst feeling in the world.”

- All three of the convicted men — whom court heard are all fathers — apologized to Huynh’s family while addressing the court.

- “Not a day goes by where I don’t think of what I could have done for this not to happen,” said Ponce, who cried liberally as he spoke.

- The convicted killer trailed off, tears choking his voice.

- Behind him, his wife and mother sobbed loudly into their tissues as he uttered his apology.

- One of three men convicted in a April 2006 stabbing asked for mercy during a sentencing hearing Thursday so he can raise his two children and support his wife while she finishes her education.

- If he gets his way, Norris Ponce will do only about two more years in jail for his role in the vicious public stabbing.

- "I'm sorry to my family because I can't be there for my kids."

- Huynh was wandering around shirtless and intoxicated outside the Bannatyne Avenue club when Monkman stabbed him and then ran away into a waiting vehicle.

- The Crown argued Ponce distracted Huynh before Monkman stabbed him, and Tavares drove the getaway car.

- Police later found Monkman's blood in a rental vehicle they said was used in the attack.

- One of Tavares' relatives testified during the trial he was partying with the three before the attack, and they hatched an attack plan as revenge for another stabbing at a March 2006 wedding social.

- Monkman admitted to stabbing Huynh but said the Red River College student provoked him before the attack.

- Tavares' lawyer David Guttman said he's still unclear how the convicted men knew the victim.

"It's clear there was no plan... (The police) were unable to find any connection," he said.

- All three men addressed Court of Queen's Bench Justice Brenda Keyser Thursday and expressed apologies for the suffering of the victim's family. Lawyers for both Ponce and Tavares said, however, they were confused by the jury's decision to convict them of manslaughter in relation to the attack.

- All three men were originally charged with first-degree murder.

- Their lawyers have said they will likely file an appeal in the case.

- Crown prosecutor Dale Schille said Monkman shouldn't be eligible to apply for parole until 15 years of his automatic life sentence have passed. His lawyer argued he should be eligible after 10 years.

- Ponce and Tavares both said they didn’t agree with the jury’s verdict, but accepted it.

- Monkman will receive a mandatory life sentence for his murder conviction, but at issue will be his parole eligibility. Schille argued he should be ineligible for 15 years, while the defence suggested the more standard 10.

- Schille asked Keyser to sentence Tavares to 10 years in prison and Ponce to seven, since he has no criminal record.

- Guttman argued Tavares should receive a sentence of only three to five years, while Ponce’s lawyer Ian Garber said his client should receive a three-year sentence.

- Keyser reserved her decision.

First of all, if you want my full opinion on this verdict, read my previous blog post about it. As I feel that Tavares and Ponce were wrongfully convicted, as I think they had no part in the killing, are were not aware of an alleged plan of Monkman causing harm to somebody, I feel that they should be given the lightest sentences possible. I don't think someone should be convicted of manslaughter when they didnt kill anybody. Ponce is a father, a husband and a son and did not do this act. He told me that he feels horrible about what happened, but that he is not involved in any way, during the trial. He has been on bail for the past year and has obeyed all of his conditions and he expresses sincere remorse about what happened. Ideally, I would have loved if he had been acquitted, but since the jury got it wrong, I think he should be given a 2 year conditional sentence, so that he can support his family and since he has proven that he has followed conditions, I think it would be successful. I feel that prison should only be reserved for the most dangerous, repeat and high risk offenders and Ponce and Tavares do not fall in this category. Prison has damaging effects and they do not need to be subject to that when they didnt do anything wrong. I feel that Tavares should also receive a conditional sentence, as he too is a father and husband and needs to support his family. 

In the case of Monkman, since he admitted to the killing and was found guilty of second degree murder, the mandatory sentence is life imprisonment. (which I also feel is wrong. The Judge should have complete discretion as to how long to sentence somebody convicted of murder, but that's another issue). I feel that he should be eligible for parole at the earliest time possible, which is 10 years, because I think he was provoked and did not kill intentionally or did not plan it.  

Three men convicted in fatal stabbing outside club

Three men convicted in slaying outside bar; lawyers likely to appeal 

- Three men were convicted by a jury Friday for their roles in a deadly stabbing in a case that is likely headed for the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Glen Sherman Monkman was found guilty of second-degree murder, while co-accused Norris Ponce and Carlos Tavares were found guilty of manslaughter. All three had originally been charged with first-degree murder.

- Monkman faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for at least 10 years, while Ponce and Tavares have a much wider range of potential penalties. They will be sentenced March 4. The men then have 30 days to file an appeal of the case, which lawyers said Friday will likely be done.

- Jurors began deliberations Thursday afternoon and reached their verdict around 1 p.m. Friday.

- Ming Hong Huynh, 24, was knifed outside Club Desire on Bannatyne Avenue in April 2006. The main issue was whether jurors believed the evidence provided by Danny Simao, who claims he overheard a plan to kill Huynh while inside a car with the three accused.

- The verdicts of these men is contradictory. They believed Simao`s testimony for them to convict Tavares and Ponce, by believing that they were involved from what Simao claimed and that they drove the getaway SUV and threw the knife into the river.

- But they didn`t believe Simao`s testimony for the conviction of Monkman, because if they had, he would have been found guilty of first degree murder, since Simao claimed he was planning the killing in the SUV. 

- You cannot believe one part of a witness`s testimony and not another part. He was completely unreliable and lacked credibility and should not have been believed at all. 

- Simao lives in Ontario but was visiting his cousin, Tavares, and partying with the accused on the night of the fatal stabbing, court was told. He claims the three men discussed an attack on Huynh before the group's arrival outside Club Desire, and then dumped the murder weapon in a river after they fled the stabbing. No murder weapon was ever recovered. The Crown argued the accused planned the attack on Huynh as revenge for another stabbing that happened at a wedding social in March 2006.

- Monkman has admitted stabbing Huynh four times in the chest and cheek with a small knife while horrified bystanders watched but claims he should only be found guilty of manslaughter based on the fact he was provoked.

- Ponce was accused of distracting Huynh on the street before Monkman stabbed him. Tavares was accused of driving a getaway car, a cream-coloured Lincoln Navigator, away from the stabbing. Lawyers for both said there was no credible evidence linking them to the attack and they should be acquitted entirely.

- Defence lawyers said Simao has changed his story repeatedly about what he saw and heard the night of the stabbing. They say Simao's bizarre behaviour in court -- which included repeated bouts of vomiting and retching -- are a good indicator he was lying.

- "Someone who was providing honest and credible evidence wouldn't react like that," said Ponce`s lawyer Ian Garber

- Monkman's lawyer, Jeff Nichols, claims Simao is a "100 per cent untrustworthy" witness whose evidence should be rejected.

- Crown attorney Carla Dewar told jurors Simao's illness throughout more than two weeks of testimony is due to pre-existing health conditions, including irritable bowel syndrome and a bleeding ulcer. She claims the accused hatched a plan to hurt Huynh that was "executed perfectly.``

- Dewar said there are multiple sources of evidence to suggest the men were connected to the attack, like the Lincoln Navigator rented by Tavares and eyewitness accounts of the stabbing. Police later traced the Lincoln Navigator to a Selkirk Avenue garage, and forensic tests traced Monkman's blood to the inside of the vehicle.

- Before the attack, court heard Huynh was wandering around shirtless outside the club. His girlfriend testified Huynh used steroids and cocaine. The Red River College business administration student was intoxicated and looking to fight when he got into a fight with an Asian man alleged to be Ponce. 

- Earlier in the night, he had been seen acting aggressively towards other people at the club and was intent on picking a fight with somebody.
- Monkman claimed that he killed the victim because he was provoked by him, which is believable. 
- I truly believe that Ponce and Tavares had nothing to do with the alleged planning of this killing and that they should not have been found guilty of manslaughter. 
- Their should be a separate offence for parties to an offence, but I don`t feel they should have been guilty of manslaughter because neither of them killed anybody. 

Witness Danny Simao changed his story repeatedly in murder trial

Witness changed his story 

- Danny Simao lied on the witness stand, changed his story several times and may have exaggerated an illness to evade the punishing probing of defence lawyers, Justice Brenda Keyser told jurors Thursday.

- “Common sense tells you that there is good reason to look at Danny Simao’s evidence with the greatest care and caution,” said Keyser, delivering her final instructions to jurors before they began deliberating the fates of Glen Monkman, Norris Ponce and Carlos Tavares.

- Monkman was convicted of second-degree murder while Ponce and Tavares were convicted of manslaughter in the stabbing death of Minh Hong Huynh.

- Huynh, 24, was stabbed in the face and chest following an altercation outside a Main Street nightclub in April 30, 2006.

- Simao provided the only testimony connecting Ponce and Tavares to a plan to kill Huynh. Simao claimed Tavares said Huynh had stabbed him at a wedding social some months earlier and Monkman was recruited to kill him.

- Keyser said Simao’s version of events changed every time he told it, from his first statement to police a year after the killing, to his testimony at a preliminary hearing and his testimony at trial.

- She said Simao “lied outright” when he denied ever selling marijuana, despite wiretap evidence suggesting otherwise.

- “While those lies do not involve the specifics of his testimony in this case, they should give you cause for concern because if he would lie on that issue, could he be lying on other matters?” Keyser said.

- Simao’s testimony led prosecutors to consider charging him with perjury.

- He told jurors he had no reason to lie but also claimed police threatened him with arrest if he did not co-operate.

- Simao’s testimony was interrupted by frequent bouts of vomiting, which he blamed on irritable bowel syndrome and acid reflux.

- “He has some medical issues that lead to (vomiting) but sometimes it appeared that his illness flared up when cross-examination of his testimony was particularly intense,” Keyser said.

Three men convicted in nightclub murder
- A jury has convicted three men in the fatal stabbing of Minh Hong Huynh outside a Main Street nightclub nearly four years ago.
- Jurors convicted 38-year-old Glen Sherman Monkman of second-degree murder and co-accused Carlos Tavares, 30, and Norris Ponce, 31, of manslaughter.
- Jurors began their deliberations Thursday afternoon and reached a verdict shortly after 1 p.m. Friday.
- All three accused appeared red-eyed and tense as they awaited the arrival of the jury.
- Monkman offered a resigned shrug when he heard the verdict. He admitted stabbing Huynh but argued he was guilty of manslaughter, not murder.
- The victim was high on cocaine and on steroids according to his girlfriend when he started picking fights with several people outside the nightclub, including a man believed to be Ponce. Witnesses said that’s when Monkman intervened and stabbed Huynh.
- All three accused started the trial seven weeks ago charged with first-degree murder. Last week after the Crown closed its case, Justice Brenda Keyser ruled Tavares and Ponce were to face the reduced charge of second-degree murder.
- The 3 accused will likely be seen at a later date at the Manitoba Court of Appeal
- The verdict suggests jurors accepted much of star Crown witness Danny Simao’s testimony, despite warnings from Keyser that his evidence was to be examined with extreme caution.
- David Guttman, Tavares’ lawyer, said none of Simao’s evidence was corroborated by witnesses at the murder scene.
- “He’s a classic dirtbag. He will say whatever he thinks he needs to say.”
- The Crown alleged Monkman stabbed Huynh with the support of Tavares and Ponce, believing Huynh was responsible for stabbing Tavares at a wedding social.
- Simao, Tavares’ cousin, spent several hours prior to the killing drinking with the three accused at a comedy club and Osborne Village bar. Simao testified the three accused plotted Huynh’s death after learning of his presence at Club Desire.
- Simao testified he was in line at a hot dog cart outside the nightclub when he saw Monkman and Ponce confront Huynh and appear to punch him.
- He was frequently ill on the witness stand, resulting in frequent and lengthy adjournments. Simao said he suffers from irritable bowel syndrome and acid reflux and is prone to vomiting when under stress.
- In their closing submissions to jurors, defence lawyers painted Simao as a “fabricator” who lied on the witness stand to protect his own interests.
- The men will be sentenced March 4. Monkman is facing a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for at least 10 years and but could also be as much as 25 years.
- It`s hard to say how Ponce and Tavares will be sentenced, but I sure hope they are sentenced lightly, as they should not have been convicted at all in my opinion.  

I don`t agree with the verdicts but you can read about that in my previous post. I also think that anyone who is considered to be a party to an offence, as is aiding or abetting, should not be charged with murder or manslaughter itself, because they did not do the act. I feel that their should be a separate offence for these type of people to be charged with, that is less serious. 

And the Verdict Is......

Jury reaches verdict in murder trial

Three men, Glen Monkman, Carlos Tavares and Norris Ponce, have been on trial for 7 weeks in the fatal stabbing of Ming Huynh, on April 30, 2006 at Club Desire in Winnipeg. 

At 1:30 pm today, jurors had come to a verdict.

The jury found Glen Sherman Monkman not guilty of first degree murder, but GUILTY of second degree murder. 

Both Carlos Tavares and Norris Ponce were found not guilty of second degree murder but GUILTY of manslaughter. 

I believe I just witnessed a wrongful conviction, on the part of Tavares and Ponce. 

By convicting Monkman, the jurors clearly accepted the testimony of Danny Simao, who was unreliable, untrustworthy and completely uncredible. His memory was extremely poor and their were inconsistencies in his police statement, preliminary hearing and the trial. He provided different information to each of these sources. The jury was urged by lawyers and the Judge NOT to consider Simao's testimony because he was such a poor witness. Simao claimed that he was with all 3 accused on the day of the murder and that he overheard them planning an attack on the victim, en route to Club Desire. He said that the men were whispering and that he wasn't really paying attention, so how can we be sure, that he heard right? He even admitted himself, that he is better at what he sees than what he hears. He wasn't good at either. He then claimed that one of the accused, threw a bloody knife off a bridge and into the river, after fleeing the scene. His description of the knife and whether their was blood on it, differed throughout the trial.  I believe that Monkman was provoked by the victim, as he was acting aggressively throughout the evening towards others. I believe that Monkman did in fact stab the victim, because he admitted to doing that in court, but only because he was provoked to do so. It could have even been self defence. I thought that he should be convicted of manslaughter, as his lawyer suggested, because their definitely was a doubt raised by his lawyer, as to whether he was provoked or not. If their is a doubt, he cannot be convicted of second degree murder, according to the law. 


In the case of Tavares and Ponce, I completely disagree with their convictions of manslaughter. They were not involved and should have been acquitted of any wrongdoing. By convicting them of manslaughter, it implies that they had no insights as to the attack, but were parties to the offence. I feel as if I have just witnessed a wrongful conviction-- a terrible mistake. Lawyers raised a large doubt as to whether both these men were involved, and therefore, they should not have been convicted at all. The Crown MUST prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and they did not do that. Their was a doubt as to whether Tavares and Ponce had knowledge that Monkman was going to cause harm or death to an individual. Ponce had had an altercation with the victim before he was stabbed, on a street corner. The victim was acting aggressively and moving towards Ponce, as Ponce backed away. No punches were thrown and Ponce did not once, try to fight or provoke the victim. Ponce then disappeared and was not present while the stabbing took place, but left with the 2 other accused in the SUV. Tavares was the one driving the SUV. He was also not present when the stabbing took place and may have no knowledge that it was even going to happen. 


You cannot even consider Simao's testimony, because he is so uncredible-- yet, the jury accepted and believed his testimony? What happened there?


During trial, I had talked with Ponce multiple times while waiting outside the courtroom. He expressed to me, that he was not guilty and couldn't believe he was actually going through all this ordeal of trial. He has no previous record and this was his first charge. He expressed to me, his dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system because he shouldn't have even been in that position of being charged in the first place. He told me that Simao was lying, and it was clear to me, that he was. This man is NOT dangerous and not a risk to the public safety. He was a genuinely kind and funny person. He expressed to me numerous times, how scared and nervous he was. We talked about wrongful convictions and how many are from Manitoba and how prosecutors and police tamper with and suppress evidence. He didn't want to be the next wrongfully convicted person in Canada, but told me that if he was, I should write an article about his case, and I am doing that now, to honour his wishes. It is clear to me, that Ponce had no knowledge that Monkman was going to cause anybody harm, was not aggressive in any way at the club and was not even present when the murder took place. 


During the verdict today, Ian Garber, Ponce's lawyer, argued that Ponce should not be taken into custody. Crown is obviously opposed to that recommendation. Ponce has been free on bail for the past 19 months (1 year and 7 months) and had already served approximately one year in prison before being granted bail. His lawyer argued that he was not a risk to the public and not dangerous because their have been no issues with his bail whatsoever. He has always come to court early, has had no breaches of his curfew, has abstained from alcohol, has lived in the same place and has diligently reported to an officer frequently. 


I completely agreed with his lawyer, that he should not be taken into custody. Unfortunately, the Judge disagreed and ordered that he be taken into custody until his sentencing date. I felt sympathy towards Ponce. He expressed to me, his fears about returning to prison and how horrible it was and I just felt terrible for him, when he was placed in handcuffs and led out of the courtroom by sherrifs officers. Tavares and Monkman have already been in custody up until this point and will remain there. Before Ponce was placed in handcuffs, he gave his watch to his mom, who was sitting in the gallery. Before court, Ponce was extremely nervous and gave his mom one final hug, before heading in to hear his fate. What happened here, is an injustice and is such a sad thing to witness. I feel sympathy towards Tavares' and Ponce's parents and siblings, who were also present in court. Tavares appeared to bclose with his mom as every day during trial, he would whisper to her "I love you," when he came in and out of court and would blow her a kiss. Ponce even told me that he feels horrible for what happened to the victim in this case, and he wishes it hadn't happened, but he didn't do it and wasn't involved. He said he doesn't agree with murder and especially expressed his distaste for murders of children. He told me that he didn't like how the media articles were portraying him. He said it was distorted how they portrayed him as a killer and in a negative light, and didn't want to be seen as such. This man has a heart and is not a bad person. He was trying to be optimistic about what was going to happen. He also told me, "I'm 31, I've never been charged with anything, why would I want to do this and screw up my life?"    

Sentencing date is set for Thursday, March 4th. With a second degree murder conviction, Monkman faces life in prison with parole eligibility set anywhere between 10 and 25 years. The jury chose not to make a recommendation as to the number of years he must serve before his parole eligibility. I just hope that Ponce or Tavares are sentenced to a lengthy period in custody. Because Ponce was successful during his bail and was deemed not a danger to society, why should he be placed in prison now? I feel he could be successful without having to be in prison.  

Jury to decide on Monkman, Ponce and Tavares murder trial

Murder trial goes to jury 

Jurors to decide fate of murder suspects

Murder-trial jury deliberations resume today

- The fate of three men charged with a deadly stabbing outside a downtown Winnipeg bar now rests in the hands of a jury.
- Jurors spent the night sequestered in a hotel and will resume weighing the evidence this morning.

- Deliberations began Thursday afternoon into the high-profile homicide case following seven weeks of evidence.

- The judge gave her charge to the jury in the morning and jurors began deliberating by early afternoon. 

- Glen Sherman Monkman has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder, while Norris Ponce and Carlos Tavares pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder.

- Ming Huynh aged 24 was stabbed outside Club Desire in April 30, 2006

- The key issue for jurors is whether they believe the testimony of the Crown’s star witness, Danny Simao, who claims he overheard a plan to kill Huynh while inside a car with the three accused

- Monkman’s lawyer, Jeff Nichols, claims Simao is a "100 per cent untrustworthy" witness whose evidence should be rejected.

- Danny was partying with his cousin, Carlos, one of the accused, on the night of the stabbing. 

- He claims that the men discussed an attack on the victim in the vehicle on the way to the club and then dumped the murder weapon in a river after they fled the stabbing. 

- No murder weapon was ever recovered. The Crown argued the accused planned the attack on Huynh as revenge for another stabbing that happened at a wedding social in March 2006.

- Monkman has admitted stabbing Huynh four times in the chest and cheek with a small knife while bystanders watched but claims he should only be found guilty of manslaughter based on the fact he was provoked. 

- Ponce is accused of distracting Huynh on the street before Monkman stabbed him. Tavares is accused of driving a getaway car, a cream-coloured Lincoln Navigator, away from the stabbing.

- Lawyers say their is no credible evidence linking them to the attack and should be acquitted. 

- Simao has changed his story repeatedly about what he saw and heard the night of the stabbing. They say Simao’s bizarre behaviour in court – which included repeated bouts of vomiting and retching – are a good indicator he was lying.

- "Someone who was providing honest and credible evidence wouldn’t react like that," Ponce’s lawyer, Ian Garber, said Tuesday in his final submission to the jury. "You don’t get any points for being sick and throwing up."

- Crown says he was sick due to pre-existing health conditions, including irritable bowel syndrome and a bleeding ulcer and that testifying took a toll on him. 

- "I urge you to make sure they don’t get away with (murder)," she said. Dewar said there are multiple sources of evidence to suggest the men were connected to the attack, like the Lincoln Navigator rented by Tavares and eyewitness accounts of the stabbing. Police later traced the Lincoln Navigator to a Selkirk Avenue garage, and forensic tests traced Monkman’s blood to the inside of the vehicle.

- Huynh used steroids and cocaine and was wandering and pacing shirtless outside the club that night. 

- He was aggressive and attempted to fight with many people that night. 

- He was intoxicated and looking to fight when he got into a fight with an Asian man alleged to be Ponce. 

I believe that Ponce and Tavares should be acquitted. Their is really no evidence that links them to the killing, besides the fact that they were at the club at that time. Neither of them were present when the killing took place and it could be argued, that they didn't find out about it until afterwords. Danny's testimony is completely unreliable, uncredible and a complete lie and should not even be considered. 

I believe Monkman should be found guilty of manslaughter because the victim was aggressive and definitely provoking others that night, so it is believable that he also provoked Monkman, which caused him to lose control. If convicted of manslaughter, I feel Monkman should be sentenced to between 6-9 years in prison. Their is no evidence that this killing was planned and/or intentional, therefore, Monkman cannot be found guilty of first or second degree murder. 

Crown's star witness is "100% untrustworthy"

Crown's star witness called 'classic dirtbag' 

- Lawyers for 3 men attack Crown’s star witness Danny Simao, a man they described as “a classic dirtbag” and “100% untrustworthy.”

- Glen Monkman, Norris Ponce and Carlos Tavares are charged with first degree murder in the 2006 killing at a downtown club.

- Huynh, 24, was stabbed in the face and chest following an altercation outside what was then the Club Desire nightclub on Main Street. The Crown alleges Monkman stabbed Huynh with the support of Tavares and Ponce, believing Huynh was responsible for stabbing Tavares at a wedding social.

- Danny Simao, Tavares’ cousin, testified the three accused plotted Huynh’s death after learning of his presence at the nightclub.

- Simao was frequently ill on the witness stand, resulting in frequent and lengthy adjournments. Simao said he suffers from irritable bowel syndrome and acid reflux and is prone to vomiting when under stress.

- “Someone who was providing honest and credible evidence wouldn’t react like that,” said Ponce’s lawyer Ian Garber in his closing submission Tuesday afternoon. “You don’t get any points for being sick and throwing up.”

- Simao was a “fabricator” who lied on the witness stand to protect his own interests.

- Court heard wiretap evidence suggesting he was selling marijuana out of his Ontario home, but he denied defence allegations he was a drug dealer.

- “He made up this story to get out of what he thought was a pressure cooker situation,” said Tavares’ lawyer David Guttman. “He’s a pothead with a terrible memory. He’s been morphed into a star witness.”

- Monkman did stab Huynh, but should be found guilty of manslaughter, not first-degree murder, Monkman’s lawyer Jeff Nichols said in his closing argument Monday morning.

- “We say he stepped into someone else’s confrontation and stabbed Mr. Huynh multiple times,” he said.

- Nichols said there was no evidence Monkman intended to kill Huynh and described Simao as “100% untrustworthy.”

- “If all you have is the credibility of Danny Simao, then we are done here because he doesn’t have any,” Nichols said.

I love that last quote by Nichols, "If all you have is the credibility of Danny Simao, then we are done here because he doesn't have any." I believe that the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of these men. Danny Simao's testimony cannot even be considered because he is so unreliable and untrustworthy, therefore, their is no evidence that this attack was planned and deliberate or evidence that Tavares and Ponce knew anything about the attack. Ponce did not assist or encourage the attack and was not present when the stabbing took place. Tavares did drive the getaway vehicle, but their is no evidence that he knew that a stabbing had occurred or that Monkman was responsible and had allegedly planned the stabbing. None of this can be proven. 

I would say that Ponce should be found not guilty on all charges, Tavares should be found not guilty on all charges and Monkman should be found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced between 8 and 12 years, in my opinion. I hope that the jury will also come to this conclusion. It would be a tragedy to see someone wrongfully convicted.