I attended the Robert Kociuk first degree murder trial today, where closing arguments were taking place. The Defence counsel went first.
The Defence started by reminding the jury that Kociuk is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the Crown and that we have this rule to protect against wrongful convictions. When Kociuk was interviewed by police in 2005, he said that he didnt know Beverley Dyke (the murder victim) and did not have sex with her. He now agrees that the DNA found on Dyke's body, is indeed his. This not mean however, that he had sex with her, sexually assaulted her or that he killed her, said defence. He does not need to prove his innocence or explain why his DNA was found there. He initially told police that he is a bank robber, not a murderer and he didnt understand why he was being charged.
He was near the murder scene on May 15th, the day the Crown alleges that Dyke was killed on, buying a gun from a man in order to commit his next robbery, which happened the next day, the same day that Dyke's body was found. Dyke's neighbour, Kalen, said that he saw Dyke alive on May 16th at her house and that he remembered this because she exhibited "odd behaviour." This proves, that she did not die on May 15th. An entomologist testifed that it is very likely that she died on May 16th or the early hours of May 17th. Kociuk maintained his position that he did not have one night stands with girls and was upset at the fact that he was being charged with murder. He was scared and wanted nothing to do with it. Much of the evidence that could have proved Kociuk's innocence or guilt, has either been lost or destroyed, such as fingerprints, blood, etc. Dyke's pubic hair was never tested for DNA. A few joggers and cyclists who frequented the wooded area where Dyke's body was found, said that they would have noticed a body, if one had been there on May 15th. But they didn't, because there was no body at that time.
No bloody clothes or shoes were ever found. The police searched Kociuk's room at the halfway house where he lived with his roommate, and his vehicle but found nothing to suggest that he was involved in this murder. They did find evidence of his robberies however, such as tools, disguises, etc. Defence says that Kociuk was picking a friend up at the same time that the murder would have happened. Where did he have the time to kill somebody? When the police spoke to him, there was no blood on his shoes. How could he commit a murder when he lived in a halfway house on parole, under supervision and a curfew? He had no opportunity to commit murder and no motive. The police said that they found the murder weapon, but really, all they found was a knife. It had blood on it, but they could test whether it was Dyke's blood and could not determine the blood type. The knife has no connection to the murder. Kociuk was also under daily surveillance during bank hours, because he was a bank robber. Where could he commit a murder without anybody seeing?
The evidence does not fit with the theory that Dyke was killed on May 15th. We know he had sex with Dyke, but do not whether it was consensual or not or when it happened. This does not prove sexual assault or murder. To convict of sexual assault, it needs to be proven that their was non consensual sex. No evidence here suggests that.
Leonard White, who was serving an 8 year prison term for aggravated assault at the time he was interviewed in 1988, gave a full confession to police, admitting to the murder. He felt guilty and had difficulty forgiving himself and resorted to self harm to cope with his problems. He also possessed psychopathic personality traits. He was violent and was a woman hater. Robert Kociuk was a bank robber, not a murderer. The Defence suggested that Leonard White killed Beverley Dyke. Leonard said that a "Ricky Morris" was with him, but no such person existed. Defence suggests that this unknown person could have lied to Leonard about his name initially. Leonard knows a man named Ricky White, whose name is similar to the one he gave police. An unknown person's DNA was found at the scene and it could have been from this unknown person. He gave police information about the murder that was not in the media such as the fact that he could see her breasts, that she was naked from the waist down, that she held up her arms to defend herself and that she had no stab wounds below the waist. None of this information, which is all true, was reported by the media. He could also describe the road and wooded area and the location of the body, perfectly, which was not reported. He even remembered the weather on that day and was right. He did get the number of stab wounds wrong, but said that when he is mad, he just keeps stabbing and is not counting. He said that he felt bad and slashed himself and got drunk, which did happen. The Crown claims that he confessed to the murder because he wanted to remain in prison longer with his gay lover. But this man was dangerous and violent and knew that he had no such chance of being released, therefore, he admitted to the murder, simply because he felt bad about it. He never gave specifics to other murders that he confessed to, like this one.
The Defence says that the jury should have a doubt that Robert Kociuk committed this crime of sexual assault and first degree murder and should therefore, be acquitted.
CROWN:
They claim that Kociuk had intent to murder while committing the sexual assault. He claimed that "her (defence lawyer's) submissions are fatally flawed," and that she overlooked evidence that does prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is clear that she was sexually assaulted where she died because she was naked. Kociuk's DNA was a match to the semen found on Dyke's body. Their was no sperm from any other unknown person except on a kleenex found next to the body. He says that the killing could have taken place on or about May 15th but is not targetting that exclusive day. Dyke's cause of death was from the fatal stab wounds. A pathologist said their was evidence of recent sexual intercourse (redness) and that the time of death could not exclude the 15th or the 16th but was more than 24 hours previous to the day the body was found on the 17th. The wounds were caused by a sharp, one sided instrument which is consistent with the knife with human blood found near the scene. Intercourse took place more than 4 hours previous and took place recently prior to death. On the 16th, Kociuk had been seen by police searching for something near where the knife was later found. He first said he was collecting garbage but then changed his story and said that he was waiting for a man to deliver a gun to him (and that man chose this spot) and he was paranoid because the police were watching him (surveillance). He then said that he was picking up pop cans and then left to get the gun. The knife found, was similar to a knife that Kociuk possessed. He claimed that he used it for fishing.
Crown claims that all the information Leonard White told police, had been reported in the media earlier. He is an habitual liar and the man he said helped him, "Ricky Morris," does not exist. He made no mention to stab wounds to the back, when there were. He also said that he threw the knife in a river or traded it with someone, which is not true. He also said that he cut her throat, which is also not true. Just because he is violent, does not make him connected or responsible for this murder.
I am not sure which argument to believe, at the moment. This is a very complicated case, especially because it took place more than 20 years ago (1984).
No comments:
Post a Comment