Man who stabbed wife and cousin in unprovoked attacks, sentenced to prison

7.5 year sentence handed down in unprovoked stabbings

WINNIPEG - A Winnipeg man was sentenced Friday to 7.5 years in jail after pleading guilty to two counts of aggravated assault and resisting arrest for a brutal attack on his wife and cousin in May 2007.

Larry Brass, 29, admitted he stabbed his spouse in the throat and face, severing a major artery, which caused her to suffer a massive stroke, spend several days on life-support and be left brain-damaged, partially paralyzed are requiring full-time care. Brass also admitted to slicing his cousin's neck and slashing his face as he slept on a couch, causing extensive blood loss and permanent scarring.

He then cut his own arms and throat and begged Winnipeg police to shoot him when they arrived at the West End apartment. Officers were able to wrestle him to the ground without using deadly force. The scene was witnessed by the couple's 12-year-old daughter and Brass' 14-year-old sister.

Brass' will be given double-time credit of six years for the three years he has already spent in custody. he will be eligible for release in six months.  Supervised probation will follow, with conditions to include counselling and a ban on alcohol consumption.

The Crown had sought four more years in prison, while the defence claimed Brass should be released from custody immediately with a sentence of three years time served.

Despite the grisly attack, Brass' wife told the court earlier this month that she has forgiven her husband and hopes to reconcile once he is released from prison.

His probation will also include a condition not to resume living with his wife unless his probation officer gives written consent.  The judge indicated this would provide "one final check" to ensure living with her husband is what the woman "really wants."

The Brass family is no stranger to tragedy. He is the nephew of former Manitoba RCMP Const. Dennis Strongquill, who was gunned down in December 2001 by three heavily armed Alberta fugitives during a seemingly routine traffic stop near Russell. The cousin Brass attacked is Strongquill's son.

Crown wants 4 more years, Brass wants to be released now. 

Severed major artery in wife`s throat and left knife stuck in cousin

Brain damaged wife forgives him for the brutal knife attack 

Judge described attack and scene inside home as mayhem

Brass slashed his own arm and neck and yelled at police to shoot him, had to be tasered. 

Judge describes how Brass, both victims initially all critical, this easily could have been double-murder/suicide. 

Judge: "The attacks were brutal, bloody...the effects devastating." 

Judge: Brass' teen daughter, sister "traumatized", as were police who witnessed carnage. 

Judge describes how wife suffered massive stroke during emergency surgery, family told she likely wouldn’t survive. 

The woman made miracle recovery, but damage permanent. Was a teaching assistant in Winnipeg School Division, dream of being teacher dashed. 

Brass has been in custody 3 years. Crown, defence agree judge can give 2-for-1 credit of 6 years. 

Judge: Recounting defence theory this random attack out-of-character in otherwise "loving relationship", caused by "cocktail" of booze, drug 

FYI, Brass admits consuming both while celebrating wife's 28th birthday hours before attack.

Brass claims to have no memory of attack, no explanation for why he did what he did. 

Brass made "a number of seperate decisions during his rampage" to attack wife, cousin, police.  

Judge: Worth noting he didn't attack teen daughter, sister. Shows he had "some thought process" at time of attacks. 

Judge: Brass a "good candidate" for rehabilitation, has expressed genuine remorse. 

Brass is now 30. Has no prior criminal record. His uncle was murdered Manitoba RCMP Const. Dennis Strongquill. 

[Comment From AndreaAndrea: ]  I grew up with Larry and his wife, known them since grade 7. He was the most genuine, sweetest guy. I cannot even imagine that he could do something like this. So sad.

Brass was working at time of attack as a youth worker for troubled adolescents in Winnipeg School Division program.

Judge: No indication of any prior spousal abuse, problems. Brass described as a "model inmate" during time in custody.  

Judge: "This gives court confidence it has an offender who has recognized his wrongful conduct." 

Judge: Also worth noting the victim wishes to resume contact with Brass. 

Judge: However, all of these positive factors in some ways make this unprovoked, unexplained attack even more troubling. 

Judge: "Mr Brass is luck not to be facing charges of murder or manslaughter." 

Judge: Defence sentencing suggestion not fit. Crown suggestion strikes a better balance. 

SENTENCE - 7.5 years total. Less 6 years pre-trial credit. So, 1.5 years from today. 

POLL: Is a 7.5 year sentence fair in this case.....

                YES: 45% NO should be longer: 50% NO should be shorter: 5% 

Plus supervised probation to follow. Conditions include no booze, domestic/managment/addictions counselling. 

Also, condition not to resume living with wife unless probation officer gives written consent. 

Judge: This provides "one final check" to ensure resuming living with husband is what wife "really wants." 

Judge: "I'm not naive enough to believe happy ending in works...not pessimistic enough to not give it a chance." 

So, Brass has done 3 years. Gets another 18 months from today. Eligible for release 6 months from now. 

Means he could serve as little as 3.5 years total. 4.5 years at most, but almost nobody does full time, especially with no priors. 

Judge, in final words to Brass, tells him not to forget the victims he hurt. "Your responsibility doesn't end here. Just enters new phase."

Inexplicable knife attack left wife with brain damage
A Winnipeg man responsible for an inexplicable knife attack that sent his wife, his cousin and himself to hospital in critical condition has been sentenced to 7 1/2 years in prison.
Larry Brass, 30, received double credit of six years for time already served, reducing his remaining sentence to 18 months.
“The attack was brutal, bloody and the consequences ... devastating,” said Justice Robert Dewar.
Brass previously pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault and one count of obstruction of justice in connection with the May 5, 2007, rampage.
Court heard Brass and his family spent the previous night celebrating his common-law wife’s 28th birthday, during which time Brass consumed alcohol, cocaine and ecstasy.
Brass, his wife and cousin returned to the couple’s Wolever Avenue apartment around 6 a.m.
A short time after going to bed, Brass was heard yelling at his wife and choking her. Brass retrieved a steak knife from the kitchen, returned to the bedroom and stabbed the woman in the face. He then moved to the living room where he stabbed his sleeping cousin in the face, neck and arms.
Brass then returned to the bedroom and stabbed his wife several more times in the face and neck, severing her carotid artery.
Brass’ 12-year-old daughter and 14-year-old sister witnessed the attacks and called 911 after barricading themselves in their room.
Police arrived to find Brass sitting outside the room with serious self-inflicted stab wounds. Court heard he advanced on officers with a knife and was shocked with a Taser.
Brass said he had no explanation for the attack, which left both of his victims suffering permanent and debilitating injuries. Brass’ wife suffered a stroke during surgery and serious brain damage. She has no memory of the attack.
Brass had never been in trouble with the law and was by all accounts a loving husband and father, said his lawyer Greg Hawrysh.
Hawrysh argued Brass appears to have been in a state of “excited delirium” and unaware of his actions.
Court heard Brass and his wife want to renew their relationship after he has finished his sentence.
Dewar sentenced Brass to an additional two years supervised probation, which includes a condition Brass and his wife not live together without the permission of his probation supervisor.

I completely disagree with the 7.5 year sentence. Good thing double time was taken into account so now he only has to serve 1.5 years with 3 years probation, which is much better. Getting tough on crime is not effective!! When will people learn this!! Longer sentences do absolutely nothing to deter or reduce crime. Justice to me, does not mean punishment, revenge or retribution. I think we need to shift our justice system to one based on restorative justice and rehabilitation. 

  

This man had no prior record, was unaware of his actions which were likely caused by drugs and alcohol, was a loving and supportive father and husband, expressed genuine remorse for his actions, and had already spent 3 years in custody. He was also employed in a job where he was helping and counseling youth in the school division. There was no evidence of domestic abuse in the household. I think these are all very relevant mitigating factors, which were not properly considered by this judge. In my opinion, this man should have been released with a 3 year probation order, and no more prison. Really, how is prison going to help this man... It wont. 

This man is an excellent candidate for rehabilitation and could really benefit from counseling, drug and alcohol treatment, and especially from victim-offender mediation with his family, as part of restorative justice. If his wife wants to resume living with him and forgives him and the man shows remorse, I think mediation could be extremely effective for them both to be involved in the justice process where the man could learn how his actions have truly impacted his family and to help repair the harm done and restore their relationships. This man has a family and needs to support them. I DO NOT think prison is suitable for him, as he is not likely a risk to re-offend and is not dangerous. He is a first time offender and should not have been sentenced this harshly. 

Mitigating Factors	Aggravating Factors
Pleaded guilty	Unprovoked stabbing on wife and cousin
Accepted Responsibility for Actions	2 counts of aggravated assault
Intoxicated (Alcohol, Ecstasy, Cocaine)- possibly unaware of his actions	Left wife partially paralyzed and cousin with permanent scarring
Deep remorse (offered tearful apology)
No prior criminal record/never been in trouble with the law previously
Loving husband and father

Jury finds man guilty of second degree murder

Jury finds man guilty of murder in inner city

WINNIPEG — He claimed the real killer was never caught - but a jury has ruled otherwise in finding a Winnipeg man guilty of a deadly inner-city shooting.

Cory Bushie was in tears Thursday night after being convicted of second-degree murder for the July 2007 killing of 20-year-old Aaron
Nabess in a lane behind a known crack house at 575 Magnus Ave.

Jurors heard two weeks of evidence and needed just a few hours of deliberations to reach their verdict.

Bushie now faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for at least 10 years. Queen's Bench Justice Doug Abra has the option of raising eligibility between 11 and 25 years.

All 12 jurors were polled on the parole question following their verdict, as required by law.

The results were mixed - three said Bushie should have to serve at least 25 years behind bars, which is the same penalty for first-degree murder.

One suggested it go up to 12 years, one suggested the 10 year minimum, and the other seven had no recommendation.

Sentencing will be held later this spring. Bushie remains in custody.

The case centred around two women who testified they saw Bushie pull the trigger. But defence lawyer Danny Gunn argued this week there wasn't enough evidence to convict his client and that the real killer wasn't put on trial.

"I can't tell you who did it. I wish I could," Gunn said during his
closing arguments. "But this case can't possibly be one with proof
beyond a reasonable doubt."

Gunn said there were plenty of other people with opportunity and motive to kill Nabess, a known drug dealer. Gunn suggested the eyewitness testimony from two women who say they watched Bushie shoot Nabess is flawed and may have been an attempt to cover up the truth.

However, the Crown told jurors there should be no doubt about Bushie's guilt. They noted the testimony of Marilia Martins, who broke down in tears last week while describing how Nabess and Bushie got into a dispute that ended with gunfire while she and a friend stood nearby. The four had just left the North End home, where a party was going on inside.

"Aaron told Cory 'I can get my boys' and Cory said '(Expletive) your
boys'," said Martins. "Then Cory pulled out the gun. He shot him."

Bushie guilty of second degree murder

A jury has convicted Cory Bushie of second-degree murder in the fatal shooting of another man outside an inner-city crack house.
Jurors reached their verdict at approximately 7:30 p.m. Thursday following a half day of deliberations.
Aaron Nabess was killed in July 2007 following an altercation outside a Magnus Avenue crack house.
After the verdict was delivered, Nabess’ mother broke down sobbing while on the other side of the court gallery Bushie’s mother hung her head in sorrow.
Bushie faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison. He will return to court this summer to determine when he should be eligible for parole.
Three jurors recommended he serve the maximum 25 years in prison before being eligible for parole, while seven jurors had no recommendation, one recommended 10 years and another 10-12 years.
The Crown’s case against Bushie relied on the testimony of two women who arrived at the crack house in the company of Bushie and Nabess.
One of the women testified she saw Bushie pull a gun from his pants following an argument between the two men while the other woman testified she saw Bushie shoot Nabess.
Defence lawyer Danny Gunn argued the physical evidence didn’t support the women’s version of events.
Gunn said the trajectory of the bullets was inconsistent with their claim of where the shooting took place. A blood trail started several houses away from where the woman said Nabess was shot, Gunn said.
“This can’t have occurred in the manner described,” Gunn said Monday in his closing argument. “I can’t tell you who did it,” Gunn said. “I wish I could.”
A final sentencing date will be set next month.

Guilty verdict in shooting 
HE claimed the real killer was never caught -- but a jury has ruled otherwise in finding a Winnipeg man guilty of a deadly inner-city shooting.
Cory Bushie was in tears Thursday night after being convicted of second-degree murder for the July 2007 killing of 20-year-old Aaron Nabess in a lane behind a known crack house at 575 Magnus Ave.
Jurors heard two weeks of evidence and needed just a few hours of deliberations to reach their verdict.
Bushie now faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for at least 10 years. Queen's Bench Justice Doug Abra has the option of raising eligibility between 11 and 25 years.
All 12 jurors were polled on the parole question following their verdict, as required by law.
The results were mixed. Three said Bushie should have to serve at least 25 years behind bars, which is the same penalty for first-degree murder. One suggested it go up to 12 years, one suggested the 10-year minimum, and the other seven had no recommendation.
Sentencing will be held later this spring. Bushie remains in custody.
The case centred around two women who testified they saw Bushie pull the trigger. But defence lawyer Danny Gunn argued this week there wasn't enough evidence to convict his client and that the real killer wasn't put on trial.
"I can't tell you who did it. I wish I could," Gunn said during his closing arguments. "But this case can't possibly be one with proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
Gunn said there were plenty of other people with opportunity and motive to kill Nabess, a known drug dealer. Gunn suggested the eyewitness testimony from two women who say they watched Bushie shoot Nabess is flawed and may have been an attempt to cover up the truth.
However, the Crown told jurors there should be no doubt about Bushie's guilt. They noted the testimony of Marilia Martins, who broke down in tears last week while describing how Nabess and Bushie got into a dispute that ended with gunfire while she and a friend stood nearby. The four had just left the North End home, where a party was going on inside.
"Aaron told Cory 'I can get my boys' and Cory said '(Expletive) your boys,'" said Martins. "Then Cory pulled out the gun. He shot him."

My Article:

Cory Bushie, found guilty of second degree murder, in fatal shooting
By Brittany Maria Thiessen, April 22, 2010 9:26 pm


On the evening of April 22nd, a jury reached a verdict in the murder case against Cory Owen Bushie, 30, after deliberating for only 5 hours. The found Bushie guilty of second degree murder, as charged.

The Crown`s case against Bushie, consisted of two key witnesses, who claimed they saw Bushie pull the trigger of a gun in the July 2007 killing of Aaron Nabess, 20, in the back lane of a Magnus Avenue crack house. Clearly, the jury accepted the testimony from the two witnesses.

Both women who testified, Beatrice Yellowback and Marilia Martens, had been consuming copious amounts of alcohol at a party on Pritchard Street, shortly before they arrived at the Magnus house. They were accompanied by Bushie at the party. Yellowback testified that everyone at the party appeared to be drinking. Martens told police that Bushie had been "all drunk and stupid." Martens and Yellowback testified to observing Nabess and Bushie arguing in the back lane, after Bushie had stepped in on a dispute between Nabess and Martens. Both women testified to seeing Bushie pull out a gun and shoot Nabess. Martens said, "Cory pulled out the gun. He shot him (Nabess)." Martens also said that it had been dark and she could not see the faces of either Nabess or Bushie clearly, but assumed it was them because nobody else had been in the back lane. Both women denied the suggestion to being too drunk to be able to see things clearly.

The defence, Danny Gunn, argued that their was not enough evidence to convict his client. He said there were many other people with opportunity and motive to kill Nabess, as he was a well known drug dealer in the area. Gunn claimed that the eyewitness testimony from the two women who testified to seeing Bushie shoot the gun, was flawed and might have been an attempt to cover the truth.

Second degree murder requires intent to kill. The jury also had the option of convicting Bushie of manslaughter, which is unintentional killing, most often used in cases where the accused was intoxicated or provoked.

Bushie now faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no parole eligibility for anywhere between 10 and 25 years, as will be decided by the Judge at a later date. The jury had a number of parole eligibility recommendations for Bushie. One juror recommended 10 years, one recommended between 10 and 12 years, three recommended 25 years and seven had no recommendations.

I thought Bushie should have been convicted of manslaughter, because I didn`t think the Crown proved intent to kill, beyond a reasonable doubt. Bushie was likely intoxicated and may have been provoked by Nabess. 

I also completely disagree with the mandatory life sentences for murder. It limits judicial discretion severely in not allowing them to consider all mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Not all murders are equal, yet they are treated like they are in sentencing. All murders and all offenders are unique and different and all have different circumstances surrounding their crimes. They should be sentenced differently. Plus, MMS causes more trials and more prison overcrowding. MMS also do not deter crime.  

RCMP officer found not guilty in harassment case

RCMP officer found not guilty in criminal harassment case

SELKIRK -- A Manitoba RCMP officer has been found not guilty of criminal harassment against his ex-girlfriend, a provincial Crown attorney.

Cpl. Jeff Moyse learned his fate Thursday morning following a week-long trial earlier this month.

Provincial court Judge Christine Harapiak said there was no evidence to suggest Debbie Buors was ever fearful of Moyse, which is required to prove the charge of harassment.

Buors previously testified Moyse wouldn't accept the end of their eight-month relationship in December 2008 and flooded her with hundreds of unwanted phone calls, emails and text messages. Many of the communications were read in court, including the transcript of two obscenity-filled phone messages he allegedly left for Buors two days after her father died suddenly.

Buors' friend, prosecutor Lisa Carson, said she transcribed the calls verbatim and found them threatening. Moyse claims he has "no memory" of making the calls, which were not permanently recorded.

In a text message, Moyse allegedly told Buors she had pushed him as far as she could and "I hope you get everything you deserve." In another, Moyse is accused of telling Buors "Careful how you treat me. Think hard about what I know. Watch your tone." He also tells Buors to "quit hiding in your cyberworld. Just wait until we meet face to face."

Special prosecutor Ryan Rolston argued Moyse was trying to frighten and intimidate Buors, who finally sent an email on March 11 saying she was putting Moyse "on notice" she would seek a restraining order and/or criminal charges if he had any contact with her.

But defence lawyer Gene Zazelenchuk noted Buors appeared at the Powerview RCMP detachment on March 12 to interview two victims of crime. Moyse initially refused to let her in the building, causing a big scene.

Zazelenchuk claims Buors was "baiting the bear" and would frequently send "mixed messages" to Moyse by contacting him days after claiming she didn't want to speak with him again.

Moyse testified in his own defence and accused Buors of trying to goad him into a confrontation. Moyse said he believes Buors was trying to "set up something physical" so she could build a criminal case against him.

Mountie not guilty
Woman didn't fear for her safety, Judge rules

SELKIRK — A judge has acquitted an RCMP corporal of criminally harassing his ex-girlfriend, a Winnipeg Crown attorney, saying she was not satisfied the woman feared for her safety.
But Judge Christine Harapiak had some critical words for both Jeff Moyse and Debbie Buors and how they handled their bitter breakup.
“It is not unusual ... to date someone you meet at work,” Harapiak said. “Any breakdown in the relationship must be managed with a high degree of personal discretion and care; even more so when the parties are primary actors in the criminal justice system. That care does not seem to have been taken here.”
Moyse, 40, smiled and hugged his lawyer following Harapiak’s ruling.
Harapiak said Moyse’s actions were at times mean and childish — including a vitriolic, curse-filled voicemail delivered days after the death of Buors’ father — but not criminal.
“People occasionally behave badly when relationships break down,” Harapiak said. “I am of the view that Mr. Moyse behaved very badly and created unnecessary stress for Ms. Buors at a very difficult point in her life. I am not convinced a criminal offence has occurred, however.”
Court heard Buors lost both of her parents within a year of each other and was having serious family problems during her relationship with Moyse.
Earlier this month, Buors testified she tried several times to break off her nine-month romance with Moyse, only to have him bombard her with unwanted — and often angry — phone calls, e-mails and text messages. During one 24-hour period, Moyse called or texted Buors 70 times.
Harapiak said Buors showed no signs of fearing Moyse, a key component for criminal harassment.
In March 2009, Buors threatened Moyse with a restraining order and then visited his workplace the next day to interview trial witnesses. Moyse tried to bar Buors from entering the Powerview detachment office in March 2009, resulting in an angry confrontation.
Harapiak said she was satisfied, on this occasion, it was Moyse who feared Buors, not the other way around.
“He appears to have been overwhelmed, unsure what next steps to take,” she said. “I find it was Buors who was angry on this occasion and Moyse who was fearful.”

I completely agree with the verdict. There was not enough evidence to convict and no evidence that she was fearful, beyond a reasonable doubt. There was also too much of "he said, she said" type of evidence, which is why it is very hard to convict someone in these types of cases. Good job Judge! 

17 year old teen found GUILTY of three counts of first degree murder and three counts of attempted murder

Teen found guilty on three counts of first degree murder

IT was one of the most violent attacks in Winnipeg history. And now a teenager has been convicted of his role in a bloody house party ambush that left three people dead and another three seriously injured.

A teenager has been convicted for his role in a bloody house party ambush that left three people dead and another three seriously injured.

The 17-year-old - who can’t be named because he was 15 at the time of the March 2008 shooting spree – was found guilty Wednesday night of three counts of first-degree murder and three counts of attempted murder.

Jurors reached their verdict around 9 p.m. after beginning deliberations in the late afternoon. The clean-cut youth, clad in a dark suit, showed no emotion as he stood in the prisoner’s box and learned his fate.

Sentencing has been adjourned until later this spring. The Crown is expected to seek an adult penalty for the boy, which would allow for a much longer prison term and could clear the way for his name to be published. He remains in custody.

The Crown’s case took only six days and was based largely on the evidence of a controversial key witness. Howard Roulette, 27, testified last week that he drove a getaway car from the shooting after the teenager and an adult co-accused, Colton Patchinose, held a gun to his head and ordered him to stay outside the Alexander Avenue home.

Scott Lavallee, 31, Jennifer Ward, 26, and Corey Keeper, 22, died after being struck at close range by at least eight of the 19 bullets that were fired that night by two masked gunmen. Family members of the victims were in court Wednesday night but declined to comment.

Defence lawyer Ryan Rolston told jurors in closing arguments Tuesday they should not convict his client because Roulette’s evidence is "unreliable." He suggested Roulette may have been the real gunman and may have made up a story to avoid prosecution.

"This man lied at every turn," Rolston said. Police originally charged Roulette with the murders but quickly dropped the charges when they determined he was a witness. Roulette said he was never given any deal in exchange for his testimony.
Jurors clearly believed Roulette’s evidence in reaching their speedy verdict, despite the fact there were no other eyewitnesses who could identify the killers. Patchinose remains before the courts and is presumed innocent. He will stand trial in adult court later this year.

Roulette told court Patchinose believed at least one of the people inside the home was responsible for an attack about 10 days earlier that left him suffering stab wounds. Roulette and Patchinose had been at the party earlier in the night but left, only to return a short time later.

Roulette had met Patchinose weeks before the deadly shooting because their girlfriends were roommates. He said Patchinose told him to drive to a house on Pritchard Avenue once they initially left the party on Alexander. He was told to wait outside.

Patchinose emerged a few minutes later with the youth who is now on trial. Roulette said the two men pulled out handguns in the car, ordered him to go back to the party, and talked about wanting to "shoot the place up." Roulette claims he balked at their plans and said he didn’t want to be involved. He said Patchinose threatened to kill him if he didn’t comply.

Roulette said he was ordered to park, then watched as the two accused ran towards the home, guns drawn. They returned moments later, telling him to speed away.

"Their adrenalin was rushing. The first thing they said was it was easy, that they just went in through the back door," said Roulette.

Youth guilty in triple slaying

Jurors find youth guilty of murder; Faces life term in triple slaying

A 17-year-old male is facing a mandatory life sentence after a jury convicted him Wednesday night of three counts of first-degree murder and three counts of attempted murder.

Standing in the prisoner’s box, dressed in a black suit, the youth wore a grim expression that did not change as the verdict was delivered.

Scott Lavallee, Corey Keeper and Jennifer Ward were killed March 29, 2008 after two masked gunmen walked into an Alexander Avenue house party and opened fire. Three other partygoers were wounded.

Family members of both the youth and the deceased declined to speak to reporters following the verdict.

A second accused, now 20 years old, is expected to stand trial later this year.

Justice Colleen Suche ordered the preparation of a mandatory pre-sentence report for the youth. A sentencing date will be set in May.

Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the youth will serve a maximum term of 10 years in custody.

Jurors declined an opportunity to recommend whether he be eligible for parole after serving a minimum five years in prison or maximum of seven years.

Jurors took less than seven hours to reach a verdict in a case that hinged on the testimony of one witness.

Howard Roulette was originally arrested with the two other accused. Police later dropped charges against him when they concluded he was a witness, not a suspect.

Roulette testified he was forced at gunpoint to drive the then 15-year-old accused and 18-year-old co-accused to the house party, knowing they intended to “shoot up the place.”

Roulette told court the older accused claimed he recognized people at the party as those responsible for stabbing him some weeks earlier.

Crown attorney Dale Schille argued Roulette had no reason to lie about the killings and could have evaded arrest had he kept his mouth shut.

“If he had remained silent there would have been no arrest,” Schille said.

Manitoba teen guilty of 3 murders; Crown says it will seek an adult sentence

A 17-year-old boy who walked into a Winnipeg house party and opened fire with a handgun for no apparent reason has been convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and three counts of attempted murder.
It took a five-woman, seven-man jury less than six hours to find the boy guilty of killing Scott Lavallee, 31, Corey Keeper, 22, and Jennifer Ward, 26, at a home on Alexander Avenue in the early hours of March 29, 2008.
Three other people were wounded: two men, aged 19 and 29, and a 41-year-old woman. They survived the attack in which more than 19 shots were fired by two teenagers.
Court heard over the course of the week-long trial that there was no apparent motive for the attack, but jurors clearly believed the shootings were planned and premeditated.
The boy was 15 when he was charged in connection to the killings.
Now 17, he cannot be identified under the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The Crown is seeking an adult sentence in the case, and a sentencing hearing is still to be scheduled. He has been in custody since his arrest the day after the killings.
Jurors began deliberations at about 3:30 p.m. CT Wednesday and arrived at a verdict about 9 p.m.
The teen showed no emotion upon hearing the jury's decision.
He was flanked by his defence lawyers as he stood in the prisoner's box while the verdict was read. He looked up at the ceiling for long periods of time.
The boy's supporters left court immediately after the hearing concluded without commenting.
Another man, Colton Patchinose, 20, is charged with the same offences and is awaiting trial.
The Crown's case against the youth hinged largely on the testimony of witness Howard Roulette, 27.
Roulette testified that he and Patchinose were at the party but left after Patchinose had a discussion with another guest. He said he and Patchinose picked up the teen at a North End home. He said he was forced to drive to the party by one of the two accused who held a gun to his head.
Patchinose and the teen left the car and shot up the party, a Crown attorney told court, then returned to the car and drove away.
Roulette was initially charged in connection with the shooting, but prosecutors dropped charges after concluding he was actually a witness.
During the trial, defence lawyer Ryan Rolston attacked Roulette's credibility in an effort to portray him as a liar.

I have written a previous blog post about my strong opinions towards this case and sentence. In short though, I do not think that this teen should be sentenced to an adult term because it has been proven to be ineffective and I thought that he should have been found guilty of second degree, not first. 

JURY VERDICT in teen triple murder trial....

So the jury came back with a verdict in the trial of a 17 year old teen charged with 3 counts of first degree murder and 3 counts of attempted murder at approximately 9:45 pm after only 5 and a half hours of deliberating. 

Unfortunately, the jury came back with the verdict of GUILTY of all charges; 3 counts of first degree murder and 3 counts of attempted murder. 

Personally, I was shocked. I did not believe the Crown's key witness, Howard Roulette's testimony, about being forced at gunpoint and planning the shootings, mainly because he had lied to police initially, had many previous convictions and appeared to be untrustworthy. He had inconsistent statements and the other two accused had offered him $1000 to participate in the shootings. I believe that he was an active participator in the killings alongside both accuseds, but that the attacks were not planned. How can you believe what he is saying when his statements are so inconsistent?

I was predicting a verdict of 2nd degree murder on 3 counts and guilty of discharging a firearm (instead of attempted murder) on 3 counts. 

I am torn on the issue of whether this teen should be sentenced as an adult or a youth. If sentenced as an adult, he will face life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 25 years. If sentenced as a youth, he faces maximum 10 year sentence, with 6 of those years in custody and 4 years under community supervision. 

Personally, I do not agree with mandatory minimum sentences for murder especially, because it severely limits judicial discretion pertaining to sentencing. I feel that judges should have the ultimate discretion and be able to examine the unique circumstances of each case and decide on the best sentence. By imposing MMS, all offenders convicted of murder are treated the same, when are they are not. They are all different and by treating them the same, actually creates more inequalities and unfairness and disproportionate sentences. 

If I had ultimate judicial discretion, I would sentence this youth to a 15 year sentence, with parole eligibility set at 7.5 years (half the sentence). 

Every murder case is different and deserves to be treated as such, in my opinion, not all lumped together in one sentence. 

About the issue of sentencing a violent youth to an adult prison.... 

The purpose of prisons are to help protect society from potentially dangerous criminals, attempt to act as a deterrent and prevention for future crimes and to punish offenders by restricting freedom. 

Youths who are sent to adult prisons, even if they committed a violent crime, can potentially become more violent and dangerous, and learn "new criminal ways." They are at a much higher risk of being sexually assaulted, bullied and have a higher suicide risk. A youth who may have mental health issues, low education or addictions, will have far less opportunity for rehabilitation in adult prisons as there are less resources and programs catering to these needs and to the specific needs of youths. 

Youth prisons and restorative justice in particular, have been shown to reduce crime more effectively with more serious crimes. Restorative justice works with violent crime more consistently than with property crimes. Many people, believe that RJ should only be used to non-violent crimes but the research shows that the value is increased when used in cases of violent crime.

When placed in adult prisons, youths have even less of a chance of being rehabilitated than if sent to a youth prison or even better, a community sanction. Studies have shown that adult prisons do not deter youth crime and actually make them more violent. When released, they are more likely to re-offend and commit more serious crimes. 

There is a common myth held by the public, that the adult system is more effective for juveniles. This is a misconception is the adult prisons are overcrowded, offer less programs and resources, especially for youth and there is no evidence that it is more effective for youth. Youths in the adult system have higher rates of recidivism than youths incarcerated in the youth system. Placing youth in adult prisons simply reinforces the popular notion of "out of sight, out of mind." 

Housing teens in adult prisons is simply wrong, regardless of the evils they have committed. Youths are 5x more likely to be sexually assaulted and 2x more likely to be beaten, than in youth prison. Placing them in adult prisons constitutes deliberate indifference to their well-being and dehumanizes them. In addition to being costly in terms of time and resources, it prevents reconciliation and healing.

Transferring the problem of the most serious juvenile offenders to an even more overwhelmed and less effective system makes no sense.  

My point being, that after doing some research, I do not think that juveniles should be punished by sending them to adult prisons. 
We could accomplish a better result with these teens by sending them to a youth prison not an adult one. The bottom line, is that young inmates are much more likely to re-offend after being released from an adult prison.


Therefore, pertaining to this case of 17 year old found guilty of 3 counts of first degree murder and 3 counts of attempted murder, I feel that he should NOT be sentenced to adult prison, but to youth prison instead (which means he would get 10 years in total as opposed to life with no parole for 25 years).

Jury finds Robert Kociuk guilty of first degree murder in 1984 killing

Man found guilty of 1984 murder 

Victims' reatives weep as man found guilty of 1984 murder

A jury has found Robert Kociuk guilty of first-degree murder in the slaying of Beverley Dyke nearly 26 years ago.

- Kociuk faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for at least 25 years under the the most serious charge in the Criminal Code.

- The family of Beverly Ann Dyke was in tears this evening when a jury convicted a man of killing the Winnipeg woman more than 25 years ago.

- Robert Kociuk, 68, was convicted of first-degree murder. He was arrested in 2005 after his DNA was matched to semen found on Dyke’s body. She was brutally raped and stabbed to death in 1984, her half-naked body discarded in a wooded area near the Winnipeg airport.

Kociuk, 68, was on trial accused of raping and stabbing Dyke to death on May 15, 1984 and leaving her half-naked body in a wooded area near what is now called Richardson International Airport.

Jurors began deliberating early Friday afternoon. A verdict was reached Friday night at around 8 pm.

Kociuk’s lawyers argued another man, Leonard White, was responsible for Dyke’s murder. White confessed to the killing in 1988.

Police dismissed the confession, believing White gleaned details of the killing from news reports. Court heard testimony suggesting White claimed responsibility for the killing so he could remain in prison with his gay lover.

White died in 1999.

When police in 2005 confronted Kociuk with DNA evidence proving he had sex with Dyke, Kociuk denied ever meeting her. He later claimed he had sex with Dyke but said it was consensual.

- Kociuk was initially interviewed as a potential suspect because he was seen by police in the area where the killing occurred on the day before Dyke’s body was found by a jogger. Kociuk had been under police surveillance for armed robbery and claimed he was meeting someone to buy a gun for his next heist.

- "Wrong guy. I do hold-ups. You guys know. I don’t do murder," he told investigators at the time.
- Kociuk continued to deny ever meeting Dyke even after he was arrested in 2005 and confronted with the new forensic evidence. Police told him the chances of a mistake were one in 680 billion.
- 

KEN GIGLIOTTI / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS Enlarge Image

A police mug shot of Robert Kociuk

 WINNIPEG — Beverley Ann Dyke was brutally raped and stabbed to death 26 years ago, her half-naked body discarded in a wooded area near the Winnipeg airport. Now a Winnipeg man has been convicted of a "cold case" killing which grieving family members feared would never be solved.
Robert Kociuk, 68, was found guilty Friday night of first-degree murder and given a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. Jurors reached their verdict after just a few hours of deliberations. Kociuk showed no visible reaction upon learning he will remain in prison until he’s at least 93, while members of the victim’s family broke down in tears and embraced each other.

"Our family has been waiting 26 years for a conclusion to this nightmare," an emotional Chris Dyke said outside the courthouse.
His mother, Beverley, was randomly targeted and attacked by Kociuk IN 1984 in a case which puzzled and frustrated investigators for years. Kociuk was finally linked to the crime after advancements in technology meant a sample of his DNA collected following a robbery conviction was matched to semen found on Dyke’s body.
"The DNA registry is a remarkable thing. It gives you new hope," said Dyke. "We hope that with this conviction we will finally be able to get some closure and put our mother to rest."
The case against Kociuk was complicated by the bizarre fact someone else previously admitted to Dyke’s slaying. Leonard White -- who was himself killed in 1999 -- made the admission during a 1988 interview at a penitentiary in Prince Albert, Sask.
Kociuk’s lawyers urged jurors this week to find Kociuk not guilty, saying White had a lengthy history of violence against women and even attempted suicide on the day Dyke’s body was found.
"Leonard White killed her," said lawyer Roberta Campbell in her closing statement this week. "He was a violent, dangerous, explosive psychopath."
Jurors clearly disagreed in reaching the quick verdict.
Police and justice officials have always discounted White’s claim, saying they believe he falsely confessed in an attempt to stay in prison with his gay lover. Police testified last week White had a history of making bogus confessions and only knew facts about Dyke’s case that had already been revealed publicly through the media. White claimed another man named "Ricky Morris" raped Dyke, but police said exhaustive police efforts could find no evidence such a person even existed.
Kociuk was initially interviewed as a potential suspect because he was seen by police in the area where the killing occurred on the day before Dyke’s body was found by a jogger. Kociuk, a career criminal, had been under police surveillance for armed robbery and claimed he was meeting someone to buy a gun for his next heist.
"Wrong guy. I do hold-ups. You guys know. I don’t do murder," he told investigators at the time. Kociuk continued to deny ever meeting Dyke even after he was arrested in 2005 and confronted with the new forensic evidence. Police told him the chances of a mistake were one in 680 billion.
"That’s impossible. It’s not mine. It can’t be mine," a Kociuk told homicide detectives in a videotaped interview played for the jury. "I think you guys got your wires crossed here. I don’t know this lady," he said.
- Kociuk’s lawyers conceded at trial the DNA found on Dyke was a match to their client through consensual sex but offered up no further explanation. Kociuk never took the witness stand to tell jurors about the major contradictions in his evidence.
- "The brutal slaying of our mother...has left a gaping hole in our family," Dyke’s daughter, Barb Botelho, said in her victim impact statement read aloud in court Friday night. She said Dyke never got to watch her three children get married or meet any of her eight grandchildren.
- "She was an extremely kind and sweet person. How could such a heinous crime occur?" she said. "We will all grieve the loss of her forever."

- The case against Kociuk was complicated by the bizarre fact someone else previously admitted to Dyke’s slaying. Leonard White -- who was himself killed in 1999 -- made the admission during a 1988 interview at a penitentiary in Prince Albert, Sask.

- Kociuk’s lawyers urged jurors this week to find Kociuk not guilty, saying White had a lengthy history of violence against women and even attempted suicide on the day Dyke’s body was found.

- "Leonard White killed her," said lawyer Roberta Campbell in her closing statement this week. "He was a violent, dangerous, explosive psychopath."
- Jurors clearly disagreed in reaching the quick verdict.

- However, police and justice officials have always discounted White’s claim, saying they believe he falsely confessed in an attempt to stay in prison with his gay lover. Police testified last week White had a history of making bogus confessions and only knew facts about Dyke’s case that had already been revealed publicly through the media.

White claimed another man named "Ricky Morris" raped Dyke, but police said exhaustive police efforts could find no evidence such a person even existed.
- Beverley Dyke's family read victim impact statements aloud in court.
Robert Kociuk has been convicted of first-degree murder in the 1984 killing of 48-year-old Beverley Anne Dyke.
Jurors reached a verdict at approximately 8 p.m. Friday after nearly a full day of deliberations.
Kociuk, 68, will not be eligible for parole for 20 years — 25 years following his 2005 arrest — and will almost certainly die in prison.
Kociuk, a career bank robber, appeared stone-faced minutes after the verdict and had no words for the court.
Family members of the victim cried and embraced in court.
“It was the most nervous moment I ever had, waiting for that verdict,” Dyke’s son Chris said outside court.
In a prepared statement, Chris thanked police and justice officials for their dogged pursuit of his mother’s killer.
“Our family has been waiting 26 years for a conclusion to this nightmare,” Chris said. “Our mom would have been deeply touched by the diligence and dedication that so many people have shown in finding her killer and bringing justice to her memory.”
Kociuk’s conviction is a testament to the value of the national DNA bank. Had he not continued in a life of crime and been required to submit a DNA sample following a 2005 conviction for bank robbery, he might never have been charged with Dyke’s murder, let alone convicted.
Jurors were told Kociuk raped and stabbed Dyke to death on May 15, 1984 and left her half-naked body in a wooded area near what is now called Richardson International Airport.
Kociuk’s lawyers argued another man, Leonard White, was responsible for Dyke’s murder.
White confessed to the killing in 1988 but police dismissed the confession, believing White gleaned details of the slaying from news reports.
Court heard testimony suggesting White claimed responsibility for the killing so he could remain in prison with his male lover.
Jurors also heard evidence White attempted to commit suicide the same day Dyke’s body was discovered.
White was killed in 1999.
Jurors also heard testimony from a neighbour who claimed he saw Dyke outside her home a day after prosecutors said she was killed.
“Mr. Kociuk had sex with (Dyke) at one time, Leonard White killed her,” defence lawyer Roberta Campbell said in her closing address to jurors Wednesday. “He killed her and the police are wrong. The police make mistakes now and they made them in the ‘80s.”

Beverley Ann Dyke was brutally raped and stabbed to death 26 years ago, her half-naked body discarded in a wooded area near the Winnipeg airport. Now a Winnipeg man has been convicted of a "cold case" killing which grieving family members feared would never be solved.

Robert Kociuk, 68, was found guilty Friday night of first-degree murder and given a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years. Jurors reached their verdict after just a few hours of deliberations. Kociuk showed no visible reaction upon learning he will remain in prison until he’s at least 93, while members of the victim’s family broke down in tears and embraced each other.


"Our family has been waiting 26 years for a conclusion to this nightmare," an emotional Chris Dyke said outside the courthouse.
His mother, Beverley, was randomly targeted and attacked by Kociuk IN 1984 in a case which puzzled and frustrated investigators for years. Kociuk was finally linked to the crime after advancements in technology meant a sample of his DNA collected following a robbery conviction was matched to semen found on Dyke’s body.

"The DNA registry is a remarkable thing. It gives you new hope," said Dyke. "We hope that with this conviction we will finally be able to get some closure and put our mother to rest."

Personally, I feel that the defence did raise a reasonable doubt as to whether Kociuk committed this crime as another man had confessed to the murder. Besides his DNA, their was no evidence that Kociuk murdered this woman and no evidence that the sex he had with her, was consensual or sexual assault. I also dont agree with the mandatory minimum sentence for murder of no parole eligibility for 25 years. Judges should be allowed to have ultimate discretion and should be free to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances to arrive at a decision and not to be bound to MMS. Every murder case is different and unique and some warrant lengthier sentences than others. They should all be treated the same as that leads to inequalities in the system with some people being sentenced more harshly than what was needed and leads to disproportionate sentences. 

It's a tough case though, because on the other hand, he could be seen as lying about the fact that he didnt kill Dyke or sexually assault her. It could be seen that he was actually searching for the gun that night. But the problem with that is, that he actually did commit a robbery the next day with the gun that he bought that night while near the murder scene. He also has no motive to kill this woman and had no previous relationship with her. So how did he meet her and why would he want to kill her?

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.