kangaroojustice.org€¦ · Web viewUpon commencing at 10:00 a.m.--- Accused present--- In the absence of the jury. MR. DANDYK: I became aware Ms. Mulligan approached, I believe,

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15th, 1998

--- Upon commencing at 10:00 a.m.--- Accused present

--- In the absence of the jury MR. DANDYK: I became aware Ms. Mulligan approached, I

believe, Officer Bowes and started asking some

additional questions. I just wanted to clarify, I

don't know if she's asking to re-ask certain

questions or ..... I just wanted to make sure of

that.

MS. MULLIGAN: Your Honour, what happened last evening - I didn't ask Officer Bowes questions, I alerted him to the fact that I may - last evening Officer Bowes went and looked at these palmprints and compared them to Mr. Dunbar, the palmprints that are suitable, and so I wanted to ask about that since I've just now learned about it. As well, I had intended to, and had forgotten to, get an undertaking from the officer to find out what happened or what the results were of the back seat car search for blood and he had indicated to me that he would undertake to do that but I just hadn't asked him on the record to follow up on that so that the jury isn't left wondering whether they're going to hear anything more about it.

And then finally one area that just completely slipped my mind was when the officer had testified about certain prints that he was satisfied were Manon Bourdeau or Michel Giroux but couldn't say

(In the absence of the jury)

837

that in a court of law, I thought


837

that rather confusing, and as we got to the end of the day I just forgot to have the officer clarify what that meant since he was in a court of law when he was saying that.

So those are the three areas that I wanted to touch on with leave from the Court.

MR. DANDYK: I can comment on it in turn. I suppose in relation to the questioning of the prints, that's fine, we can indicate very clearly, of course, that it was asked by the Crown to look into those last night, he can indicate the results.

As to the questioning of the comparison on the prints, that's fine too. On the opinion or him giving an undertaking that can be done to the Court but, with respect, it has no evidentiary value or relevance to the jury, with respect. He can indicate he'll look into it but I don't think -- it's not relevant to the jury that he undertakes to look into it.

THE COURT: Does anybody know, is that the problem, is that what has to be looked into? MR. DANDYK: Well, we apparently ---

THE COURT: Doesn't Officer Payne have equal --- MR. DANDYK: No. THE COURT --- jurisdiction in this area? MR. DANDYK: Officer Payne made a call and they're

still trying to ascertain if there is a report. There doesn't seem to be a report issued so we haven't yet got the final answer of what the situation is. I just don't think an


840

undertaking by this officer has any relevance to this case. It's a different issue if he finds out, but what evidentiary value does his undertaking to look into it have? What relevance does it have to the issues in the trial? That's all I'm saying. I have no difficulty that he indicates to the Court and in fact I can indicate on the record right now we'll look into what happened and so on and inform Ms. Mulligan, but Officer Bowes' undertaking to look into it, I don't see what, you know, I mean that's a situation for the Court and that's a situation for disclosure but it's not an issue for the jury to decide.

MS. MULLIGAN: I just thought it would be helpful to the jury to know since the question was asked of Officer Bowes and he didn't have a report and we said we'd look for it over the break I believe was what we told them last and then we never told them anything else. It might be helpful for them to know that we were still looking for it but ---

THE COURT: Well, let's get the results of the search before the jury when the search is completed one way or the other either as between an agreement or whatever, or calling a witness, but we don't have to put the undertaking, I agree with the Crown on that, but I'll try not to lose track and I'm sure defence counsel won't lose track of the fact that she'd like to know ---

MS. MULLIGAN: Yes.


840

THE COURT: --- whether there was or was not blood. Non-blood helps. Okay, we all understand that. Okay.

MS. MULLIGAN: The other two areas then, Your Honour.

THE COURT: Did you want to ask the questions? MS. MULLIGAN: With respect to the palmprints, yes,

I'd like to ask the questions. THE COURT: All right. MS. MULLIGAN: And with respect to just clarifying

what the officer meant he was satisfied but he couldn't say it in a court of law. THE COURT: The Crown has no objections to that? MR. DANDYK: No.

THE COURT: No? Okay.

Bring in the jury.


840

--- Upon resuming in the presence of the jury at 10:07 a.m.

EARL WAYNE BOWES, previously sworn THE REGISTRAR: Are counsel satisfied that all

members of the jury are present?

MR. DANDYK: Thank you. Yes.

MS. MULLIGAN: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (continued) BY MS. MULLIGAN:

Q. Sir, I only have two more questions or two

areas to cover with you. I understand last evening --- You had

mentioned that you had been given some palmprints of a man named

Dave Dunbar. A. Yes. Q. And I understand last evening you compared the prints that were suitable for comparison, the palmprints, the three of them, one on each of the glasses and one on the side of the refrigerator, to Mr. Dunbar's palmprints. A. Yeah. One correction to that. Q. Okay. A. Sergeant Payne, the next witness, did the comparison to R-8, the print on the -- the palmprint on the fridge --- Q. Okay. But with respect --- A. --- and he will give you the results of that. He's the one that gave me the fingerprints for Dunbar. I compared the other two palmprints not identified, one on the bedroom glass and one on the living room glass, R-10 and R-11 I should say, and did not identify Dunbar. Q. Okay.

So just one other area, when you were testifying in

BOWES, cr-ex

(Mulligan)

843

chief you mentioned that in some situations you were satis-BOWES, cr-ex

(Mulligan)

843

fied that you had identified prints belonging to Manon Bourdeau or Michel Giroux in the home but that you couldn't say that in a court of law. A. Well, I don't think I said that. I'll tell you what's written in my notes. For instance, R-2, inside of the inner door near the door knob, similar characteristics to the left middle and the left little finger of Giroux but not positively identified, and I have to leave it at that. I may have said just a little bit too much that day. Now the only --- Q. Okay. Because if they're -- I'm sorry, go ahead. A. The other one would be R-4, the kitchen cupboard, similar characteristics to Michel Giroux's fingerprints but not identified. Q. And would that be because there aren't enough characteristics to say it's a match or not clear enough? A. Yes, the courts -- my training over the years and the courts have accepted sort of a minimum number of characteristics and usually it's eight and we're bound by that in introducing evidence in court and that's why I said it the way I did. I don't think I should've said that, but that's the basis of the statement. So there may be another one here to clear up any misunderstanding. No, that's all of them. Q. Just so we're clear, when you say charac-teristics, they're identifying features of the print, right? A. Well, there's characteristics - I'll try to make this as simple as possible - characteristics called things like ridge endings, ridge dots, enclosures, bifurcations, these are all names we give these little characteristics in your fingerprint. When I look at what we call a latent impression, one we develop at a scene, I compare that to a known print. I

BOWES, cr-ex

(Mulligan)

843

start off in one area of the print and I match one characteristic. I go to the second characteristic, that characteristic has to be in the same location, the same number of ridges apart, if they're not then you don't have an identification, and you keep on doing that with all the characteristics you find. That's how it's done. Q. And in the case of those ones that you had said had similar characteristics, they had some similar but not as many as eight, which --- A. Yes, less than eight. Q. And normally you would like to see at least eight to feel comfortable that it was a match of the same finger. A. Yes.

Q. Okay.A. I should leave it like that.MS. MULLIGAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Dandyk.

MR. DANDYK: Thank you, Your Honour.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. DANDYK: Q. Okay, I'm going to ask you not to leave it like that. In relation to those two, in relation to the one on the inside of the door, the first one, how many -- do you have noted how many in fact characteristics or common points there were? A. I can look for it. Just a second. Okay, I'm going to have to look at these further with a glass, Mr. Dandyk, because I haven't written it on all of them. Q. Did you note it for the second one, the counter, as to the number of points of comparison you made?

BOWES, cr-ex

(Mulligan)

843

A. No, I don't -- it's written on there. Some of the cards have it written, --- Q. Okay. A. --- it just so happens those two don't. This isn't going to be all that easy to do in the witness box here. Q. All right. Maybe I can get an idea here. At the time you said that there were similarities. From your recollection now, in looking at this, for you to even give the comment that there were similarities, do you recall now just approximately how many? Obviously we now know it's less than eight points of comparison there would've been --- A. Yes. Q. --- to make that comment. A. Like, for instance, in dealing with R-4 right now, --- Q. Yes? A. --- it's an arch, what we term as an arch type of pattern. His right middle finger is an arch pattern, his left middle and left ring fingers are arch patterns. So I've got to sit down and go through them. I don't know why I haven't written anything more on these two cards. Q. Okay. I guess what I'm asking at this point is for you to make the opinion or reach the conclusion there were similarities, how many points of comparison would there have been, you said less than eight, in saying that? A. Well, I've noticed that some of them here --- MS. MULLIGAN: Your Honour, just before the wit-

ness answers, how many there would've been is not really relevant. We want to know how many

BOWES, re-ex(Dandyk)

860

there were. I don't think this witness should be guessing or approximating on this issue.

THE COURT: No, he's using it in the sense of "would" for the comparative, ---MR. DANDYK: Yes.THE COURT: --- how much makes it similar in other words. He's not using whether they were or were not in fact there, no.

MR. DANDYK: Q. I'm simply asking, for you to reach the conclusion that there were similarities would it have been one or two, four or five, five or six, or are you able to say at this point? A. Well, in the area of three to five. Q. That's fine. That's fine. A. There's a lot of other things, like how clear they are and ..... There's a lot of things that enter into it. Q. That's fine. That's fine then actually.

A. Do you want to leave this for now? Q. We won't take the time to go through them. That's fine. That's sufficient.

The other aspect is, you were asked in fact by myself, and we removed the exhibits from the previous proceeding, to compare R-10 and R-11 with known prints from Dave Dunbar, correct? A. Yes. Q. All right. And you had indicated at least in relation to R-10 and R-11, which are the fingerprints off the glass in the living room and the glass in the bedroom, correct?


860

A. Yes. Q. And you said that it did not or you did not identify Dave Dunbar. A. That's correct. Q. Okay. What does that mean? A. Well, I didn't --- Q. If one speaks of there was a match or he was eliminated which would --- A. I did not find one point of comparison that I could even start with. Q. So there's nothing, nothing similar to Dave Dunbar on those prints. A. No. Q. Okay. Now, in relation to, and you were asked about the correction of bedroom, living room, on the glass? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall that, and you made the correction during the last proceeding -- is that correct? -- on the record? A. In 1995. Q. Yes. Maybe you can clarify what happened there. A. Could I see the two lifts? It would be R-10 and R-11. Now there's a third lift with that. Okay, on R-10 written on the back of the card --- Q. Yes? A. --- is "living room glass". Q. Okay.


860

A. R-11 I've written on the back "bedroom glass". It's dated, I think in both cases, 20th of January, 1990, --- Q. Okay. A. --- at least one of them is. Then it would be on January -- the next day, Sunday, January the 21st is the first chance I had to sit down and list the fingerprints I had lifted --- Q. All right. A. --- in an easy to read manner. Q. Right. A. And I think I mentioned yesterday that they go from R-1 to R-9 and then R-10, R-11 I guess is not in there. At that time I didn't put down any identification from R-1 to R-8. On R-9 I identified that print on the kitchen table as the right palm of Michel Giroux. And then I started doing comparisons I presume that day on -- it would be the fingerprints on the living room glass, one finger print on the side identified as the left thumb of Manon Bourdeau on January the 21st, 1990, and one fingerprint on the side looked similar to the right ring finger of Manon Bourdeau. Here's a case, there are approximately five characteristics that agreed but positive identification is not established.

When I met with the Crown --- What I did was I just wrote in "bedroom glass" by mistake, that's all it is. Q. Okay. Now I think you just said actually for the actual print that was lifted with the card, that comes from that location, on the back of the card you had it right, you had bedroom glass. A. Yes.


860

Q. I'm sorry, living room glass. Now I'm getting it wrong. A. But I think Mr. Cooper takes the credit for pointing this out to me. Q. Okay. So it was simply a correction and in fact ---

A. Oh yes.Q. --- it's correct on the back of the actual

print that was lifted from the glass. A. That's right. And in open court here on March the 31st, 1995 my mistake was corrected and I wrote in "living room glass" in my notes and stroked out "bedroom". Q. That's fine. That's fine. And in relation to at least the prints on that glass, are you able, if you're able to say, are those consis-tent with someone holding the glass to drink out of it? A. Well, these are, and I'll take a quick look for you, yes. Like there's many different ways you can hold a glass but I don't see anything inconsistent with that. Q. All right. THE COURT: I'm just trying to think of what else

you would do with glasses, I'm a little stymied, to tell you the truth, besides hold them.

MR. DANDYK: Yes. THE WITNESS: No, but what I'm thinking of is you

can hold a glass like that or sometimes you pick it up like that ---MR. DANDYK: Yes, okay.THE WITNESS: --- which changes the ---MR. DANDYK:


860

Q. That's fine. There was another area you were asked in relation to - maybe we can return those exhibits now - you were asked about another area and that was you had indicated you were given certain known prints to compare and you were subsequently given others, for instance Dave Dunbar now, a comparison made there. And then I guess Ms. Mulligan asked you questions about what you may or may not have noted and I just wanted to clarify that area.

I gather what you indicated was if there was no print on file for a certain individual you did not note it, is that fair? A. Well, it's something I never did. Q. Okay.

A. It's a waste of my time.Q. And if there was a card and you made a

comparison and ruled someone out, that would've been noted, I gather that's all you were saying, right? A. Would and has been noted. Q. Okay. And that's all that was. A. Yes. Q. If there was no card, no file, nothing to compare, then you didn't bother making a note of it. A. Yes. The way those things happen I get a call and do you have fingerprints for a certain person, no I don't. Q. Okay. A. Usually end of the discussion. Q. Okay. Now, you were asked as well about individuals going in and out of the house and whether a log was kept and so on. Is there an officer specifically assigned to


860

maintain continuity and security of the scene, normally at a scene? A. Yes, there is. Q. Okay. Is that your function as an Identifi-cation officer? A. To keep the log? Q. To do that job. A. To do what? Q. To do that job. A. No. Q. Okay. And when you've indicated that you note certain individuals in the house and so on, I gather you did -- to the best of your ability you noted who was in while you were there. A. Yes. Q. And that's simply part of your note-keep- ing, not part of your job per se. A. That's right. Q. Okay. Now in relation to cats and you were asked about kitty litter and I suppose you were asked how often they defecated or I don't know what, do you have any expertise in relation to cats? A. No. Q. Okay. And do you have any expertise in relation to what effect or psychological effect or whatever else, you know, some -- three discharges of a shotgun has or, for that matter, any expertise in relation to what effect it has on a cat when the cat's two owners are in fact murdered? A. I have no expertise. Q. Okay. And I gather, then, do you have any knowledge or expertise in relation to what effect that may have


860

in relation to what the cat does as far as eating habits or, I suppose, elimination habit? A. No. Q. Now, you were asked as well about garbage and whether garbage was seized. Was garbage seized? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Okay. Given this scene and so on, would you seize the garbage or why -- as opposed to why not, why or why not? A. Well, if there was something meaningful in the garbage in any way connected to the case, then there's a reason to seize it. Q. On this -- from this scene was there anything meaningful in relation to the garbage ---

A. Well not that was brought ---Q. --- from what information you had?

A. Not that was brought to my attention. Q. Okay. You were asked about cigarette butts, and obviously we've spoken of one and then there was mention of cigarette butts in the ashtrays. A. Yes. Q. Were those seized? A. Were those seized? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. And why not? A. Well, I think we said before there was the two t.v.s on, a cigarette package in the living room, a Du- Maurier package I believe, I think there were two butts in that ashtray, I think five beside the Players filter box. Q. In the bedroom.


860

A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. And the whole scenario there that weekend suggested to me that nobody come in, shot two people, sat down and smoked cigarettes and left. It just doesn't make sense. Q. You were asked as well about inventorying the house or inventorying clothing and so on. Again, with this scene would you inventory all the clothing? A. No. I don't know why you would. Q. Okay. And would you in fact I suppose even seize all of the contents of the house or, for that matter, the house? A. No. No. Q. And you were asked about E-49, the black racing gloves. A. Yes. Q. Right? A. Yes. Q. And I gather they were tested for gunshot residue, is that fair? A. Yes, they were. Q. Okay. And you tell me if you feel capable of answering this or not, but I mean I guess you were asked so you tell me, this, I gather, was some seven months later, is that fair? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And you had I guess given a difference or a differentiation between residue and propellent -- is that correct? -- at least in your mind? A. I think we were talking about probably the gold pillow, and I've just forgotten the way the questions and


860

answers were, but to me there's a difference between gunshot residue. I think of gunshot residue as the billow of smoke and whatever comes out of the gun. Q. All right. A. The propellent, to me, is the things that are more visible. Q. Okay. So where are you expecting propellent to come from as opposed to just --- A. Well, propellent from the shell --- Q. Okay.

A. --- from the weapon.Q. So we're talking propellent from the muzzle

leading with the shell coming out? A. That's right. Q. Okay. And you're talking about residue simply being the smoke that would sort of billow and cover a wider area I suppose. A. That's right. Q. Okay. Now with seven months of use of these gloves, would you expect, and this is where I asked you if you feel able to answer, would you expect residue to remain on normal use of those gloves? A. I can't answer it. MS. MULLIGAN: Your Honour, I know ---

MR. DANDYK: I think he just --- THE COURT: I don't know. Just --- MR. DANDYK: I think he might've actually said he

didn't think he could answer. THE COURT: Whether he feels he wants to or not ---

MR. DANDYK: Okay.


860

THE COURT: --- this is a preliminary objection raised on qualifications, ---MS. MULLIGAN: I just have a concern ---THE COURT: --- not based on what the witness said.

MS. MULLIGAN: I have a concern both about the witness' expertise and any foundation for the suggestion that there were seven months of use of the gloves. That's the concern I have.

THE COURT: Well, I --- MR. DANDYK: I suppose I was asking because he was

asked. THE COURT: The seven months use is ---

MR. DANDYK: All right. Seven months ---THE COURT: --- they were found seven months after the events, that's your point?

MR. DANDYK: Yes. I can accept that correction. THE COURT: Okay, subject to that. Is that suffi-

cient? MS. MULLIGAN: Well, the other concern I have is the

witness' expertise to say anything about gunshot residue and its durability and how long it would stay on something and wouldn't. I don't think this witness has that expertise.

THE COURT: Perhaps we can hear the witness' answer then, whether he thinks it does. We've outlined the problem.

THE WITNESS: No, I wouldn't want to comment. MR. DANDYK: I thought that's what he had said

actually. THE COURT: Okay.


860

MR. DANDYK: That's fine, we'll ask another witness. Thank you.

Q. Now, you had indicated as well in relation to the Carlsbad Springs, and I gather you were asked some hearsay information of your knowledge of the hotel except for the assault I guess you were involved in back in the 1970s; is that correct? A. Yeah, about the person assaulting me, that was in the '70s I know that. Q. Okay. And where were you working in 1989? A. I was with the Identification branch --- Q. Okay. And where did --- A. --- in Long Soo.

Q. --- you work? Okay. And did you have any sort of direct contact then with the Carlsbad Springs in 1989 or the late '80s at any point? A. I don't recall doing any investigations there or any offshoots from that place. Q. Okay. Now you were asked about Stephen Howard's report - Exhibit H, please? - and in fact Ms. Mulligan had you - thank you - Ms. Mulligan had you read it carefully and so on. Do you recall that? A. Yes, I do. Q. And I believe the left thumb of Richard Mallory was found and the left little finger of Robert Stewart were found in the car, correct? A. Yes. Q. And then you were asked questions about others -- other fingerprints not being found. The fact that I


860

guess there were no prints suitable for comparison and not compared with Richard -- James Sauvé, Denis Gaudreault or Richard Trudel, does that tell you that they were not in the car? A. No. Q. And why is that? A. You're saying because their fingerprints are not identified does that mean they were not in the car. Q. Yes. A. It's just common sense, they could well be there and not leave fingerprints. Q. And I suppose the further question then arises that if, especially given that I guess Exhibit 21 was the fine notices in relation to Rob Stewart with a conviction date of the 22nd of January, so after these murders, and the 24th of January postmark, given that further information and the likelihood that somebody else drove the car, or at least put that envelope in the car, --- A. Yes. Q. --- what can you comment on in relation to fingerprints being left and/or I suppose covered up by someone else driving the car subsequent to the 16th? A. I don't know if I'm quite following you. Like, could there have been a fingerprint there and obliterated by somebody else handling something?

Q. Yes.A. This type of thing?

Q. Yes. A. Yes, that could easily happen.


860

Q. I'm now showing you what was Exhibit 77 in a former proceeding and this is -- we've talked about the vacuum bag? A. Oh yes. Q. Okay. You can identify that as such? A. Yes, my property tag is on it dated May the 15th, 1990 "contents of rear seat vacuumed at Rockland detachment from 1980 Cadillac, 153 JVM". Q. Okay. Now in relation to that, as I understand it that was filed as an exhibit at the preliminary and a previous proceeding, correct? A. I can tell you in a moment. It was filed as Exhibit 77 in a previous trial. Q. Okay. And I gather as well, then, was that available to the defence to be examined ever since you basically collected it? A. Yes. MR. DANDYK: I wonder if that could be filed as the

next exhibit, please. THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 43, Your Honour.

THE COURT: Yes.EXHIBIT 43: Vacuum bag

MR. DANDYK: Q. Now you were asked a number of questions as to the time of death. Did the fact that certain lights were on lead to any conclusion as to time of death or time of day as to when these things occurred? A. Well, --- MS. MULLIGAN: Your Honour, I don't see how that's

proper re-examination. There were questions about that but just as to whether one


860

light was on on the porch actually I think it was the only question about a light by the defence at all, and Mr. Dandyk certainly had the opportunity to question about that in chief.

THE COURT: I think she's right. I think you should narrow it to what lights were on as opposed to the general theory ---

MR. DANDYK: That's fine. THE COURT: --- of the fact of the lighting. You can argue it.MR. DANDYK: I think I've gone through that in any case. We've gone through it before about the lights were on. That's fine.

Q. And from your observations as to the scene, since we're asking about the time of death, did your observations at the scene and/or looking at the photographs and the slides give you any indication of how recently these murders had taken place? A. Well, one thing or the first thing that comes into my mind would be the stiffening of the body. I'm not a doctor but I've been given literature over the years, and if I can go so far as to say I learned that it takes a number of hours for the rigor mortis, the stiffening of the body, to take place, it starts at one end of the body and goes through and then leaves in another period of time, so it's several hours, like --- Q. Okay. A. --- I recall 12 to 24 hours was what I was given but then --- Q. And did you have --- I'm sorry. Finish.


860

A. --- the blood around her head was very dark. Q. I'm sorry, what does that tell you, dark as opposed to, say, --- A. Well, fresh blood is red and as it dries it ages, it darkens. Q. And at this point are you able, you were asked some questions about any smell in the house or something else, are you able to compare from your experience how bright red blood smells compared to, say, blood that has had a chance to dry somewhat, that is darker? A. I don't know if I can differentiate that much. I can say this: the longer they stay there, the worst the smell gets. Q. Okay. And I suppose --- A. That's my experience. Q. Yes. In looking at the blood that you saw did you see any -- I'm sorry, what did you -- did you see any sort of, I'm not sure how you described it, when you in fact find the blood to be I suppose fresher blood as opposed to having dried somewhat, what colour did you describe it to be? A. I referred to dark. Q. Yes, dark as drying, and the other you said? A. If you see the blood red ---

Q. Okay.A. --- it would indicate to me it's more fresh.

Q. All right. Did you recall seeing any red or fresher blood from that scene? A. No, I don't recall that now.


860

Q. Okay. And I suppose --- A. I don't think there's any evidence of that in the photographs. Q. All right. Would you like to look at the photographs and be sure? A. I don't think it's necessary. Q. Okay. Good.

MR. DANDYK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You're free to go now.

Did counsel want a short break before the next

witness or it won't be necessary? MR. DANDYK: Yes, if I could, Your Honour, I have to set up and make some changes here.

THE COURT: All right.

All right, members of the jury, we'll take a short

break.

--- Whereupon court recessed at 10:44 a.m.

* * * * * * * *


860

--- Upon resuming at 11:05 a.m.--- Accused present--- In the absence of the jury

MR. DANDYK: Your Honour, I thank you for the time.

We appear as well then, at least during the break

Mr. Crystal and Ms. Mulligan made me aware they

have an issue with certain photographs, I guess

particularly the series of photographs 109 through

116, a number of which were taken in January of '91

and four which were taken in February of '94, and

I'm not sure exactly what the nature of the

argument is. So, that's one thing.

Actually there's another comment I should make for purposes of the record as well, and this relates to Ms. Mulligan. I would ask now and indicate that obviously one does not wish to interrupt cross-examination too much but hearsay is inadmissible and my question is in relation to the Carlsbad Springs and starting to get into rumour, what relevance it has, and I'm simply asking that that type of evidence not be dealt with.

I'm pointing out as well that it is objectionable to improperly cross-examine on transcripts and that clearly was done with Officer Bowes and to do it under the guise of suggesting you're refreshing the witness' memory doesn't change it. You try and leave an impression that you're cross-examining and/or that there was something different, and we've all read those


883

transcripts, and on the portion read it wasn't different from his testimony, so I have some difficulty with that. It's simply for purposes of the record.

The other relates to, there was some questioning in relation to identification either expert or identification of a witness. I will put counsel on notice now that the Crown is asking for any curriculum vitae or report from any expert should they intend to hire one and/or have one testify. We're in the midst of a jury trial. The Crown wishes to avoid any undue delay and obviously if they have any such information that is one area, at least in relation to expert evidence and so on, where there is some reciprocal disclosure and I would be asking for it at this point so we avoid any delay later on. I don't need any ruling from the Court on those, I simply wanted them on the record.

Thank you.MS. MULLIGAN: Well, I suppose with respect to points one, two and probably three that Mr. Dandyk made, I don't know what he's talking about and I don't agree with his characterization and I guess that's for the record as well since he's just putting it on the record.THE COURT: Okay.MS. MULLIGAN: With respect to any notice of any experts being called by the defence, when the defence determines whether it's calling a


883

defence the defence will provide that information, if there is any, to the Crown.MR. DANDYK: There is a follow-up then. I'm sorry, are you done? MS. MULLIGAN: Certainly.MR. DANDYK: There is a follow-up. Then if counsel does not have evidence and suggests to witnesses something for which there is no evidentiary foundation or opinion, that's improper cross-examination. MS. MULLIGAN: I didn't say that there wasn't.MR. DANDYK: Precisely. Then I'm asking because if there is some witness they're using or relying on then obviously we're entitled to have the material.MS. MULLIGAN: Well, Your Honour, I disagree.

Defence counsel can consult with all kinds of

experts and get all kinds of opinions and

assistance in putting questions to witnesses and I

do not have to provide my friend with those

consultations or notes of those consultations, in

my submission.

Now with respect to the photographs, the issue is with respect to - and I'll pass this up to Your Honour - photographs 109 to 116, and apparently Exhibit 49 as well, my friend wants to introduce Exhibit 49 from I don't know.

MR. DANDYK: I'm told it's '91. MS. MULLIGAN: It's photo 91? MR. DANDYK: No, no, from 1991. MS. MULLIGAN: From 1991. Okay.


883

MR. DANDYK: The date's there, it was filed in the previous proceedings.

THE COURT: Yes?MS. MULLIGAN: With respect to the first four

photos, I believe those are the ones taken January

15th, 1991 by Sergeant Payne. The next four were

taken in February 1994 I believe. The first four,

Your Honour, the purpose of those of course is to

show or intended by the Crown to show what the

Laporte sign looked like on the evening of January

16th, 1990 when Mr. Gau- dreault claims to have

driven the men to that scene. Of course, it is a

year later and the lighting in particular, or any

lights that might have or might not have been

around that sign on the evening of January 16th,

1990, is a very important issue. There is a light

on a pole that is approximately 30 feet from the

sign that faces back in towards -- away from the

road, back in towards property. That light is not a

regular street light that you would see on a street

light or on the poles facing out onto the roadway.

When that light was put in, whether that light was

in fact turned on on the evening of January 16th,

whether it is a rented light, something that some

individual has rented from the city or the

township, all of that would have to be proven that

it was in fact there and on on the night of January

16th which is the only relevant time period.


883

Indeed, the light on the house, there is no

evidence that I'm aware of that the Crown in-


883

tends to lead that the light of the house was on

such as -- or the lights as shown in the photograph

were on on the evening of January 16th, 1990. Mr.

Gaudreault's evidence as to remembering or thinks

he's seen the Laporte sign before arises during the

drive-by video sometime later. Having driven past

the sign several times he says words to the effect

of the sign keeps popping up or popping into my

mind, something about that sign. He can't and does

not and never has said that there was a light

shining on it or a light on a house or anything

like that on the night of January 16th, 1990.

So what we have is a series of photographs, there's four, that may or may not reflect how it looked on the evening of January 16th, 1990. Now Mr. Crystal has just gone to get some case- law but I think it's trite that photographs and videotapes, that sort of thing, can be entered if it accurately portrays the facts that the Crown wants to suggest the photo does, that if it's not tendered in any way to mislead and if it is verified under oath by a person who is capable of doing so, and in my submission there is no evidence that the Crown is able to lead to verify under oath that on the night of Janu- ary 16th those lights were (a) there and (b) on. These photographs taken a year later not only were taken that distance of time later but also taken at a different time of the night, Sergeant Payne testifies it was an earlier time


883

of night that he went out and took the photos. I

think he said in his evidence, and I stand to be

corrected, but I think it was about 8:00 o'clock as

opposed to the 10:30 to 11:00 that Mr. Gaudreault

testifies about. So in my submission they don't

accurately portray the facts. The Crown could have

or the police officers could have very easily,

when they went out to take those photos, gone to

the city or gone to the property owners and asked

those questions, and it is their onus to do that

since they want the evidence in, they could've

asked when did that light go up, was it there

January 16th? They could've gone to the homeowners

and said, you know, do you always have your light

on at night after a certain time? Do you turn it

off at a certain time? Do you turn it off at 10:00

o'clock at night such that it wouldn't have been

on.

The cases, Your Honour, that I ---THE COURT: Who owns the light, Laporte or the homeowner? You don't know.MS. MULLIGAN: I don't know, and I don't believe -- the light on the house certainly is the homeowner but the light on the pole, there are some state-ments from Laporte that they didn't rent the sign or the light, from one of the people involved with the Laporte Nurseries, that they didn't rent the light, but we know that later it was taken out because in later photos it doesn't appear, and


883

there were some interviews done about that, you know, do you


883

know how this light got removed, and nobody seemed

to know that either. In a sense the Crown is tendering these photos to reenact what the situation was on January 16th and in order to do that they have to prove that that was in fact the situation on January 16th, in my submission, and the cases that I expect Mr. Crystal to arrive with any moment are Nikolovski, that's from the Ontario or actually from the Supreme Court of Canada which is just a synopsis of it for the moment and I'll have the case in a minute, it's:

A videotape which depicts the scene of a crime, which is proven not to have been altered or changed, is relevant and admissible evidence. It may be used by the trier of fact to determine whether a crime has been committed and D committed it. Its weight is for the trier of fact.

Then we get into Leaney which is the Alberta Court of Appeal which is one of the cases that's referred to a lot:

A videotape of a crime in progress may be admitted in evidence on the same basis as photographs may be admitted. P must prove ...

- P being I guess the person admitting it -... that the videotape is accurate and fair through the verification evidence of a witness or witnesses under oath. An eyewit-ness to the relevant events may give the evi-dence.

And then Shaffner, which is a Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, which sets out the test which I had indicated at the beginning:


883

A photograph/videotape is admissible in evidence if

i. it accurately portrays the facts;

ii. it is not tendered with the intention to mislead; and,

iii. it is verified on oath by a person capable of doing so.

Another case Creemer, which has been used, the same

test and that's a Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, and

Mr. Crystal will bring those so that Your Honour

can review them, he's just copying them at the

moment. But I think it's fairly trite law that if it's

going to go in it has to accurately depict what the

Crown says it depicts, and it's not going in,

there's no relevance to what that scene looked like

on January 15th, 1991. There is no relevance to

whether those lights were on on January 18th, 1990

even. The relevance is whether they were there and

on as depicted at a particular time on January

16th, 1990 and unless the Crown is able to

establish that it is my submission that they have

the ability to mislead the jury and they are not

admissible. With respect to the later photos, the

1994 photos, these photos were taken three years

---

THE COURT: Suppose there was no witness, let's take


883

the smallest point of yours, suppose there was no witness to say that the light was on, okay? ---

MS. MULLIGAN: Yes?


883

THE COURT: --- but there was witnesses for everything else that it was there on January the 16th, 1990 and so on, would you then say that it's inadmissible because there's no witness to prove that the light was on?MS. MULLIGAN: I would in this circumstance, Your Honour, because Mr. Gaudreault -- the purpose -- and it depends on what the purpose of leading the evidence is, in some circumstances that wouldn't matter a hoot whether you had a witness to come and say the light was on. But what the Crown wants to suggest with Mr. Gaudreault in the video and he says it in evidence, says something about the sign was popping up in my mind, of course the defence will suggest it's nonsense, the Crown wants to suggest well of course it was because it was lit up as we see in the photo, that's why it was popping up in his mind, of course, it was all lit up. So in these circumstances yes, I would submit that the Crown had the opportunity or the police had the opportunity to collect that evidence, didn't collect it and now want to benefit from the non-collection of that evidence and put before the jury something that may well be absolutely misleading on a crucial point because, of course, it being the defence submission that Mr. Gaudreault wasn't even at the scene, this bolsters the Crown position that he was able to remember the scene and where it was at because this sign kept popping


883

up and it was all lit up at night, and in my sub-mission that is misleading.THE COURT: So on your argument, then, the presumption of regularity does not go that far in this particular case on these particular facts, you know, that normally lights are on at night, that's why you have lights at night, and that the onus will be on the person who says, as an onus probandi, that if you say that the lights are off then the onus would be on you to prove that the lights were off?MS. MULLIGAN: I would think that in this circum-stance and I would submit, Your Honour, that there is no regularity and people put their, especially the house lights, they put their house lights on and off at will at night and sometimes if they're out or they're in they might be in and they don't have their house light on for days on end. But cer-tainly with no evidence suggesting that that light was even installed on the evening of January 16th and functioning on the evening of January 16th, then there can be no presumption of regularity that it was likely on on the evening of January 16th.THE COURT: I asked you one question and you answered another one. I said assuming all that. This was your last problem, okay, but you've made your point. I have it I think. Is there anything else?MS. MULLIGAN: The other four photos, Your Honour, are taken in February 1994, they are


883

less objectionable I suppose because they are not

relating to as crucial a point but nevertheless

they're taken three years later. I don't know who

it is that will be able to verify that that is

precisely how the scene looked, that there weren't

any other billboards or signs or anything. You will

remember that in the evidence Mr. Gaudreault claims

when he was at the parking lot of the Newfie Pub

there in the Cadillac and that's when he saw Jamie

Declare and that they were able to see Mr.

Stewart's truck across the street, the red truck

that Mr. Stewart was allegedly driving, and they

were able to see Mr. Stewart come across the street

and I presume that is the point of those

photographs, to show that you could see and to show

the area that is fairly open. I don't know, having

not been here in 1990, and certainly not being

satisfied that photographs taken three years later

depict if there was any other billboards or signs

or even if the sign that's up there is the same

one, or if there was more snow or less snow or cars

in the lot. In my submission those would have to be

proven to be accurate portrayals of the scene as it

existed three years earlier and I don't know if

anyone in the Crown camp is able to do that, to

prove that that is how it looked on January 16th,

1990, the signs were the same, that everything was

the same, that there was nothing blocking his view.


883

So those are the concerns about that one and as I say they're less objectionable just because they don't go I guess to the heart of the matter as the other one does, but they certainly, in my sub-mission, the Crown should have to prove that that accurately depicts the scene as it existed when Mr. Gaudreault claims that he was sitting there in the white Cadillac, and Mr. Crystal isn't back yet but as soon as he arrives with those cases I will provide them to Your Honour and to my friend.

THE COURT: Okay. MS. BAIR: Does Mr. McKechnie have a similar

litany of complaints? MR. MORRIS: We'll adopt what Ms. Mulligan said,

Your Honour. THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much.

MS. BAIR: On the factual matters, Your Honour, photograph number 87 which was taken on the 20th of January of 1990 shows both the Laporte sign and a light on the light standard above it. That's the first thing that needs to be said.

THE COURT: Could I see that? MS. BAIR: Can I approach the Bench to point it

out? MR. MORRIS: Could I just have the photo number,

please? MR. DANDYK: 87.MR. MORRIS: 87?

THE COURT: 87.


883

DETECTIVE RIDDELL: You may need a magnifying glass.MS. BAIR: You might need a magnifying glass as Officer Riddell has said, but there's the light post right there above the Laporte sign.

In addition, the aerial photo ---THE COURT: I'm either going to have to become a diamond cutter or get Mr. Bowes' instrument I guess. All right.

MS. BAIR: Thank you. I'll return that to Mr. Dandyk.

THE COURT: Does anybody have a magnifying glass? MS. MULLIGAN: I'm sorry, I did yesterday, Your

Honour, but I've left it at the office this morning.

DETECTIVE RIDDELL: I'll go and see if I can get one.THE COURT: Okay.MS. BAIR: In addition, Your Honour, the aerial

photographs taken at the time certainly show the

Laporte sign in its place, I mean we know the

Laporte sign was there when those photographs were

taken in January of 1990, there's no doubt about

that. We know in addition that Officer Lamarche

used the Laporte sign to direct people to the spot

on the 18th. We know of course that it would be

impossible for us to have pictures taken on the

16th of January given that the bodies were not

discovered until the 18th, so that degree of

contemporaneity is impossible and an unnecessary


883

qualification for my friend to attempt to impose.(In the absence of the jury)

883

In addition, Detective Lamarche will be testifying. She'll be indicating that throughout the year of 1990 she drove past that sign and light combination every day and when she drove by at night it was on. She has that evidence, it will be before the jury. There was no change over the year. In addition, an interview was conducted with Roger Laporte on the 24th of March, 1995 which I'm going to pass up to the Court for you to read. He was asked whether the light was there, he said "It's been there for several years, I think it was there before the deaths across the road but I'm not sure." That's part of that evidence.

The most important point, Your Honour, is that my friend is absolutely incorrect when she indicates that Mr. Gaudreault never says the light was on. Mr. Gaudreault does indicate that the sign was lit up, I have extracts of his testimony to that effect. Of course that's why the night photographs are taken a year later because Mr. Gaudreault in the drive-by indicates the light was on, that's in the summer of 1990, so when January comes by again we take the photographs at night with the lights on because he indicated the light was on when he went there. So the premise of my friend's argument that Mr. Gaudreault never says so is flawed and I think her argument collapses right after that.THE COURT: Is Roger Laporte the person who lives at the house in the picture which seems


883

to be behind the Laporte sign, do you know? He lives at 1213 according to this interview report. "Name of employer: Laporte Nursery." MS. BAIR: I can't say, Your Honour.THE COURT: You can't say for sure. Okay. This is on March the 2nd "I asked you about a street light that was on the road in front of your property. What can you tell me about this light?" All right.MS. BAIR: Transcript of Mr. Gaudreault from the 18th of September of 1995, Your Honour:

BARNES: And that's the Laporte sign which is now on the right-hand side of course, right?

GAUDREAULT: That's why I told him to slow down.

BARNES: Because you saw the sign?

GAUDREAULT: Eh?

BARNES: Because you saw the sign?

GAUDREAULT: Yeah, because I remember when I came

down the hardest thing is you're stoned on freebase

when you go in, you buzz, you remember a sign,

okay, it's some kind of board lit up. You drop the

guys off, you go back, the board is still there,

same light.

Another excerpt, I'm sure there are many more, from

the 18th of September still with Mr. Barnes, Mr.

Gaudreault in the middle of a long answer saying:

I remember there was something really bright, it looked like a bill -- I couldn't tell you the name, it just looked like a billboard.


883

Moving on to the next page, it's close in sequence, Gaudreault "Well I know it was a lit up sign."

That's part of Mr. Gaudreault's evidence that the

sign was lit up. Then we go back in January rather

than June, I mean he's there in the day- time in

June, we go back at night in January, that's as

accurate a depiction as possible in the

circumstances. All of the complaints that Ms.

Mulligan has as to whether it was actually on on

the 16th, well we have the evidence of Mr.

Gaudreault on that point; whether it was on

throughout 1990 we'll have the evidence of

Detective Lamarche on that point.

The other inaccuracy sort of issues are all fodder for cross-examination. She is free to suggest to the jury that the photograph taken in January of 1990 is not representative and when Mr. Gaudreault says there was a light on well he's wrong because there's no evidence that it was there the two days before everyone else saw it, I mean if she wants to do that. We now have a magnifying glass, Your Honour.

THE COURT: Okay. MR. DANDYK: I'm providing 86 and 87.

MS. BAIR: I think that the lighter one, the

underexposed picture, shows it more easily.Frankly, Your Honour, I think there's no difference between photographs taken in January of '91 of lights that are in place there and whether


883

they're an accurate depiction of the(In the absence of the jury)

883

scene on the 16th, then there is the photographs taken on the 18th, 19th and 20th in the daylight a couple of days later, you're still asking jurors, finders of fact, to draw reasonable inferences and that's all we'd be doing in this case. Officer Payne can indicate these photographs accurately depict the scene as he saw them when he took the photographs and the inferences will be available as the Crown argues them and as the defence argues them.THE COURT: All right. Well I have to fool around with this. I can't do this right now. I have to take my time. I'm like Mr. Bowes, I can't do it in the witness box with everybody watching. Okay.MR. DANDYK: I believe, I'm going to suggest, there's a clearly visible diagonal -- between the first and second wire there's a diagonal leading right off the pole and it's visible in both photographs. And the same, both 86 and 87, you can see a diagonal between the first and second wire leading right off the pole.MS. BAIR: This other picture, Your Honour, photo-graph number 110 for the record, shows it clearly so that when you look for the less clear image you'll see what we're looking for.

MS. MULLIGAN: But that's January 15th '91, right?

MS. BAIR: Right. MS. MULLIGAN: Okay.

THE COURT: For the Court to get a reading on where it is ---


883

MS. MULLIGAN: Yes.MS. BAIR: Right.

THE COURT; --- on the pole is the crucial thing and

then I'll try and locate it with the magnifying

glass. Thank you.I'll bring those all back. That will be my lunchtime with my sandwich.MS. MULLIGAN: Your Honour, I should say, and say clearly, that I didn't recall Mr. Gau- dreault's evidence that it was lit up. What I was recalling was his drive-by when he drives by the sign and says "there's something about the sign that keeps popping up", that's what I remembered and I stand corrected by Ms. Bair that he said that it was lit up or it was a lit billboard or something like that. In any event, and I guess he says it in 1995 but in any event we still need to know.

MS. BAIR: He said it in 1990. MS. MULLIGAN: In the drive-by, is that what

you're saying?MS. BAIR: In a statement in 1990.MS. MULLIGAN: In a statement. Okay.

Then I've just missed that point, Your Honour, but

in any event we're still left with the situation

as to whether the house light is on, whether it

accurately depicts -- I note that photo 88, which

is a photo that appears to have been taken some

time at night, it doesn't appear to be on in that

photo and that's January 20th, 1990, if it is in


883

fact there that's(In the absence of the jury)

883

the one where Ms. Bair suggests it's there. I'm not saying it's not, I'm not saying it is, I can't see it, but there's no light on and it seems to have been taken at a darker time with a flash.

MS. BAIR: Photo 88 of the garage?MS. MULLIGAN: Yeah, at least based on my view of it the sky is darker and it appears to be taken some time in the early evening. It just seems to be a little darker with a ---MS. BAIR: The dusk shot?

MS. MULLIGAN: Well it seems that if it's taken at ---

MS. BAIR: This is the one that the Court has and it's the dusk shot, Your Honour.MS. MULLIGAN: Well, looking at the next one, which I guess is 88, it has a darker background and I don't know whether it's dusk or not but it seems to have been taken with a flash, the photo shot.

MS. BAIR: It's pretty clear it's dusk.MS. MULLIGAN: Well if I can have the other one maybe I should pass it up to His Honour as well.

MS. BAIR: You'd better identify yours so they don't get mixed up with ours.

MS. MULLIGAN: I'm borrowing Mr. McKechnie's photos ---

THE COURT: Another one?MS. MULLIGAN: --- which is number 88 and I will return it yet again but this is ---


883

MR. MORRIS: I just put Mr. McKechnie's initials on the

back. MR. DANDYK: For information of the Court they were apparently taken at 1635 on the 20th, so 4:35 in the afternoon.MS. MULLIGAN: I didn't know that. I don't know. That's when Fortier took them, is that the information from someone?

MR. DANDYK: No, no, Officer Payne took them. MS. MULLIGAN: Oh, Okay. I thought Ms. Bair had said

that Officer Fortier took them. MS. BAIR: No, I don't even know anything else

Fortier did. MS. MULLIGAN: Well, to the extent that it may or

may not assist you, there it is. THE COURT: All right. I have 88 and I'll bring them all back after lunch.MS. MULLIGAN: And just the final point, Your Honour, Ms. Bair said well we can't -- with the degree of contemporaneity we can't take - the word probably has a French root somewhere in history that's why I'm having difficulty - but we can't take photos on the 16th but that's precisely why inquiries ought to have been made in order to prove the photo, inquiries ought to have been made. That statement you have from Roger Laporte deals with the fact that he owns Laporte Nursery, not that he lives in the house next door, and the pole is actually on Laporte Nursery property, the house next door to

the pole. There's about 30 feet between the light pole

or the pole that the light is on in the


883

1991 photos, 30 feet from the sign to the pole and about another 30 feet from the pole to the house, but the pole seems to be on Laporte Nursery prop-erty and that's why he's talking about it being on his property.

And there's some cases that I've passed up that Mr. Crystal retrieved that just basically give you the same principles that I've stated.THE COURT: All right. Let's get the jury back in.

MR. DANDYK: Your Honour, I guess I should indi-

cate now where we are just because they may be in

and out.I plan to go through the officer's c.v. and then some discussion of basically lead in how he got to the scene, then deal with the overhead diagram, have him explain to do the scene video which I understand is 11 or 12 minutes, then we're into slides. Now that may take I suppose some -- well I guess these are, yeah, I mean I don't know, it's just ---

THE COURT: What you want me to do is go look at them now and ---MR. DANDYK: Well, I'm wondering, I mean otherwise we end up interrupting. Things may go more quickly. It may take us to 1:00 o'clock but I can't guarantee it.

THE COURT: All right. I have the rest of the argument. I just need to do this.

MS. BAIR: Just before the Court leaves, of course Mr. Gaudreault will be available to say


883

whether the photograph in '91 looks the way he saw it in '90 as well. He's the only one who can.

--- Whereupon court recessed at 11:42 a.m.

* * * * * * * *--- Upon resuming at 11:55 a.m.

--- Accused presentTHE COURT: Let me begin by saying I adopt Ms. Bair's submissions with respect to the general thrust of the evidence. As to my own role, what I tried to find was the lamp on the pole and tried to relate a 1991 picture which shows it very clearly and looking at that same position whether or not I could see it in pictures number 87 and 88.

MR. DANDYK: 86 and 87.THE COURT: 86 and 87, I'm sorry, and whoever said it was probably a little bit clearer on the sort of underexposed photograph was right, it is a little bit clearer under the magnifying glass. I am satisfied by my eyesight that it's there. What convinces me that it's there is the fact that all of the trees around it are straight lines but there is a round globe-like structure which is right in the middle of all of these branches and straight lines, and that seems to me and also you can see the bracket, and the combination of the two convinces me that that is the lamp or the light. Consequent- ly there is nothing misleading about the evidence, and whether or not at the end of the day


883

the light was on will depend upon Mr. Gau- dreault

it will depend upon cross-examination, it will

depend upon a lot of things but certainly as of the

18th the lamp was there, and as of the 16th the

light will either be on or not depending what the

trier of facts thinks about Mr. Gaudreault. So the

evidence is admissible in my view.

Would you give back 88, please, lest Mr. McKech-

nie accuses me of joining forces with Ms. Mulligan. MS. MULLIGAN: I wonder, Your Honour, if you

intended to make --- THE COURT: And then 49 of course is included in

that as well.MS. MULLIGAN: I wonder if you intend to make any ruling with respect to the photographs taken in 1994, the four from 1994.THE COURT: No, I think those photographs are adequate for the purposes for which they are pres-ented and there will be several witnesses who will come forward who will be able to say whether or not the photos represent the intersection as of 1990.

All right.


883

--- Upon resuming in the presence of the jury at 12:00 o'clock noon

THE COURT: The next witness, please.

MR. DANDYK: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you. The

Crown's next witness is Sergeant Randall Payne.

RANDALL DAVID PAYNE, sworn

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. DANDYK:

Q. Now then, Officer Payne, as I understand it

you are an Identification officer? A. That is correct, sir. Q. I suppose more technically you're in fact connected with the Technical Identification Services Unit, that's the title with the OPP? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. And I understand as well in relation to this matter you were I gather the lead Identification officer in relation to the attendance at 1222 Queen on the 18th of January, 1990? A. Yes, sir, I was. Q. Okay. Now as I understand it you have certain materials, notes and so on that you made at the time? A. Yes, sir, I do. Q. Have there been alterations or deletions to those notes after the time they were made? A. No, sir, there was not. Q. Do you wish to have those notes available to you should you need to refresh your memory? A. Yes, please.

PAYNE, in-chf(Dandyk)

966

MR. DANDYK: I would ask, then, that if it's necess-ary the witness be allowed to refresh his memory.MR. MORRIS: No objection.

THE COURT: No objection to the notes? MR. CRYSTAL: No objection, Your Honour.

THE COURT: Thank you. MR. DANDYK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Go ahead, Officer.MR. DANDYK:

Q. Now, Officer, as I understand it you in fact have a curriculum vitae or a list of your experience as an Identification officer? A. Yes, sir, I do. Q. Okay. Maybe if you could get your copy out and then I'll indicate certain points.

As I understand it you're presently now attached to the Long Soo detachment; is that correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. And I understand that you joined the Ontario Provincial Police on the 12th of March, 1979? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And I understand that you've served in various locations, including Orillia, Wasaga Beach, Moosonee and in the Kingston detachment? A. Yes, sir, I have. Q. Okay. And I understand you were transferred to Long Soo on the 25th of November, 1985. A. That is correct. Q. Okay.


966

Now if you could indicate for us what duties do you carry out as an Identification officer? A. Yes, sir, as an Identification officer we attend at crime scenes and articles that are associated to crime scenes for the purpose of photography, scaled measurements for diagrams, examination of the scene for fingerprints, trace evidence and the preparation of those charts for the presentation in courts, and training for Identification duties. Q. Now initially, as I understand it, between the 3rd of April and the 17th of May, 1984 you attended at the Ontario Police College and successfully completed what was titled the Scenes of Crime course? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. What did that involve? A. The course was six weeks in length and half of the course detailed in photography with black and white and for coloured photography, and also the other half was in rela- tionship to fingerprints identification development and the aspects behind fingerprint comparisons and development. Q. I understand as well, then, between the 9th of October and the 15th of December, 1984 you worked under the supervision of a Provincial Constable G. Fowler with the Iden- tification Unit in Belleville? A. That is correct, sir. Q. And that related to as well scenes of crime and Identification duties? A. Yes, sir, it did. Q. Okay. And I understand between the 13th and the 17th of May, 1985 you attended a Police Explosives Orienta- tion course at the OPP Academy in Brampton? A. Yes, sir, I did.


966

Q. I understand that you attended and success-fully completed an Ontario Police College Identification Course between the 24th of June and the 26th of July, 1985. A. That is correct, sir. Q. Do you recall at this time what that en- tailed? A. Yes, sir, again this was a six-week course and again it was just further development of your techniques and your studies in photography and fingerprint identification and the qualifications of comparison of fingerprints was at this time between an article lifted from an article of a fingerprint nature and a comparison was made. Q. Okay. Was that, then, basically a further course or a refresher course? A. A further course, sir. Q. Okay.

Then as of the 25th of November, 1985 I understand you were employed full-time as an Identification officer? A. Yes, sir, that's correct. Q. Okay. And at that I understand you in fact worked with and under the supervision of in fact Staff Sergeant Bowes, the previous witness; is that correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. All right. I understand that between the 3rd of April and the 16th of May, 1986 you attended and completed the Canadian Police College Police Explosive Technical course and that was held at the Canadian Forces base in Borden, Ontario? A. Yes, sir, it was. Q. Between the 21st of October, 1986 and the 30th of October, 1986 I understand as well there was a -- you


966

attended and completed the Canadian Police College Radiography course for Police Explosive Technicians? A. That is correct, sir. Q. So radiography there, that's simply in relation to explosives? A. Yes, sir, it was. Q. Okay. What are you doing with radiography? A. I was using the x-ray to examine packages of a suspicious nature with an explosive device. Q. All right.

Between the 18th of May and the 29th of May, 1987 I understand you attended and successfully completed Ontario Police College Photography course? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. And that would've been -- Ontario Po- lice College, that would've been in Aylmer, Ontario? A. Yes, sir, it was. Q. And I think you had indicated further beforehand that there was photography component in previous courses, was this a refresher course or was this again further training for the techniques? A. Further training more so with the aspect of colour film. Q. Okay.

Between the 1st of June and the 5th of June, 1987 I understand you attended and successfully completed the Ontario Police College Facial Composition course? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Okay. And, sorry, what are you doing there in relation to facial composition?


966

A. Learning how to sit down with a witness and abstracting the information from the witness to develop a facial composite of a suspect. Q. So that's a composite sketch. A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay.

The 12th to the 16th of September, 1988 I understand you attended and successfully completed the Ontario Pro- vincial Police Technical Identification Video course. A. Yes, sir. Q. What did that entail? A. It was a week-long course learning the aspects of video, the nature of video and how to do video scenes. Q. Okay.

The 16th through the 27th of October, 1989 I understand you attended and successfully completed the Police Explosive Technician's Validation course at the Canadian Police College, this being in Ottawa. A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. And that is a further follow-up in relation to explosives training? A. Yes, sir, it was. Q. Okay.

Between the 1st of March and the 19th of March, 1993 I understand you attended and successfully completed the Management Orientation course at the Provincial Police Academy. A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Okay. Did that involve Identification duties or just general I suppose management orientation?


966

A. Management orientation for the position of Sergeant. Q. Okay. And when you say Provincial Police Academy was that in Brampton? A. Yes, sir, it was. Q. And between the 17th of May and the 21st of May, 1990 I understand you attended and successfully completed a Computer Aided Drafting course at the Provincial Police Academy? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Did that relate to Identification work and so on? A. Yes, sir, it did. Q. Maybe you can indicate just briefly what that was. A. Yes, this was a week-long course with the use of a computer and the program which was referred to as Auto Sketch, and Auto Sketch is a computer program you make scaled diagrams with. Q. Okay. And in fact we have an overhead in this matter and I guess hard copies of a diagram of the house at 1222. Did that course assist you in preparing that diagram? A. Yes, sir, it did. Q. Okay.

The 15th of August, 1994 I understand that you in fact were promoted and at that point reached the rank which you now hold of Sergeant; is that correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. And in charge of the Technical Identification Unit at Long Soo. A. That is correct, sir.


966

Q. Okay.And I understand on the 9th of October, 1996 you

received your designation as a fingerprint examiner for purposes of the Criminal Code and under the authority of the Deputy Solicitor General of Canada. A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. And what does that designation allow you to do? A. This designation allows me to look at a set of fingerprints of a known accused from the RCMP and a suspect's prints from the Force that has just brought him in and I can make those comparisons and make a certification that they're one and the same or they are different people. Q. Okay. So you're allowed to provide an affi- davit authorizing the comparison saying it is in fact that person. A. That is correct, sir. Q. Now if I do the math, then, I guess as of March of '99 you will have been -- so you're just short of 20 years as an OPP officer? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. And as of the 25th of November '98 I gather you will reach your 13th year as an Identification offi-cer? A. Yes, sir, that's correct.

Q. Okay.MR. DANDYK: I wonder if the c.v., then, could be the next exhibit, 44 I believe.

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 44, Your Honour.EXHIBIT NO. 44: Curriculum vitae of Randall

David Payne MR. DANDYK:


966

Q. Now then, Officer, I wonder if you could tell us what led you to 1222 Queen on the 16th (sic) of Janu- ary, 1990. A. Yes, sir. On the 18th of January of 1990 I was working and at 1620 hours I received ---

Q. I'm sorry, I said the 16th. A. Yes, you said the 16th and it was the 18th.Q. Yes. A. I received a radio message from dispatcher

Darling to call Staff Sergeant Bowes at the Long Soo office and at 1627 hours on that date, the 18th, I called Sergeant Bowes and he advised me of a death investigation in the Rockland area. I then proceeded back to the Long Soo detachment, picked up equipment, reference other cameras, video equipment, and then I followed Staff Sergeant Bowes up to the scene at 1222 Queen Street. Q. Go on. A. Okay. At 1806 as we -- I followed Staff Sergeant Bowes to the scene, we arrived at 1222 Queen Street and Staff Sergeant Bowes had a conversation with Constable Lamarche and a Constable Fortier. He advised me that there was one male person in the house who was laying on the floor. At 1811 hours we, Staff Sergeant Bowes and I, entered the house and observed one male deceased laying on the floor, his head was in the bedroom area and his feet were towards the dining room area. We then exited the house shortly after that and we concentrated our efforts on some footwear impressions in the snow that led to and from the house. Q. Okay. And why did you do that at that point?


966

A. These footwear impressions were in the slush of the -- from the path leading to the house up to the front entrance and we did not know whose they were at this time. There was eight impressions in total and eight impressions were photographed and then covered with the availability of boxes and crates to secure them due to the fact that it had started to snow and blow. Q. Okay. Now we will deal further with the scene and further things that you find if you can indicate such, but -- well maybe you can run through generally what tasks were carried out. Now you just covered the footprints. What was the next thing that you did? A. Shortly after that time I then began -- at 1859 hours the coroner arrived and I took some still shots with a 35 millimetre camera of the location of the deceased with the coroner. At that time, at approximately 1910 hours, we exited the house and then I began setting up my video equipment to video the scene and I videoed the scene from 1935 until approximately 2018, the exterior and the interior of the house. Q. Okay. A. Right after that then, at approximately 2020 hours I began still photography of the exterior of the house and the interior of the house, and then at 2100 hours while doing still photography inside the bedroom I discovered the second body of Manon Bourdeau laying beside the bed. Q. Okay. You say you discover the second body. On your initial entrance when you looked at Michel Giroux's body, did you enter the bedroom at all? A. No, I did not. Q. Okay. And do you recall at this time what the light was like in that bedroom?


966

A. Yes, sir, it was very dark, there was only a small 15-watt I believe desk lamp that was on and the television that was in the bedroom was on. Q. Okay. And can you tell us how in fact it is you came to discover Manon Bourdeau's body. A. Yes, when I was going back to the northwest corner of the bedroom itself to photograph the deceased I then basically stepped on Ms. Bourdeau's foot and discovered her body. Q. Okay. And when you said you went to photograph the deceased you're talking about Michel Giroux at that point. A. That is correct, sir. Q. And you were inside the bedroom looking back out toward the doorway where he was lying. A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. And had you seen her at all before? A. No, sir, I had not. Q. And why was that? A. The room was very dark. It's the first time that I'd actually moved inside the bedroom and over to the fur- thest corner of the bedroom. I had been in earlier with the video, but with the video camera and equipment I did not detect her. Q. All right. In fact in relation to the video did you focus into the corner she was or move into that area at all where you eventually found her, with the video originally? A. I believe so, yes. Q. Okay. And why would she not have been visible?


966

A. She was laying on the floor in between the west wall and the bed itself. Q. And was she visible above the bed --- A. No, she was not. Q. --- just from that vantage point?

Now, then, after the discovery of Manon Bourdeau I gather obviously you stopped taking pictures, what did you do then? A. Yes, as soon as the discovery of the body of Manon Bourdeau we exited the house, we asked for the coroner to return to view the second deceased and we waited until the coroner then came back. And then at 2140 hours the coroner returned and we went back inside, he viewed the deceased, the second deceased, Manon Bourdeau, and then I continued on with the photography or the still photography of the basement and her location. Q. Okay. And how long did that carry on, then, the continuation of the still photography? A. It carried on 'til approximately 2235 and then I concentrated my efforts on the footwear impressions that were outside and I sprayed those with some snow print wax to hopefully preserve them for the next day's work on them. Q. Okay. In relation to those footwear impressions what, if any, further testing was done and what, if any, results did you reach either that night or subsequently? A. Yes, during that night in discussion with Constable Lamarche there was one footwear impression that was very similar to her footwear that she was wearing, however I said we would take it anyways and we would make a comparison with her footwear at a later date. It was the same tread pattern, the same basic design as her footwear that night.


966

Q. How did you ascertain that? A. She and I were both standing over the footwear impression. She had pointed out that this is probably her footwear impression and I said "It doesn't matter, we'll still take it anyways", and then we looked at the bottom of her shoes and compared the impression and then I said we'd still spray it, retain it. Q. All right. From your visual comparisons what conclusion did you reach? A. I came to the conclusion that they were similar footwear. Q. Okay. Now, then, other impressions that you took wax of or that you in fact used wax on? A. Yes, sir, there were seven other impressions, they were of a boot-type impression. They were sprayed with a snow print wax and then they were -- dental stone cast was made of them the following day, and these impressions were then compared to a Ronald Potvin's boots and those boots of Ronald Potvin were similar in size and tread pattern. Q. Okay. You said similar in size and tread pattern. Aside from a name someone gave you or a boot to compare, did Ronald Potvin have any meaning for you? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. So you were simply provided that and asked to compare it; is that correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Was there anything distinctive? You've spoken about size and treadwear pattern. Was there anything distinctive about those boots? A. Yes, sir, these boots were work boots and they had bars with an etching pattern inside those bars, plus


966

there was x's throughout the boot. These were very similar as to the impressions that I had developed that night and the following day. Q. Okay. And I think you said seven additional ones. How many of them compared to Ronald Potvin's boots? A. The entire seven that were left, sir. Q. Okay. Thank you. Now I think you had indicated, then, where the area of the footprints and your follow-up and the waxing. You indicated at one point dental --- A. Dental stone ---

Q. Dental stone?A. --- was used to cast the impressions, sir,

yes. Q. Okay. Is that the same thing dentists use, quick drying compound? A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. That's why you're saying dental stone? Okay.

How long then did you carry out the task that night, at least putting the wax in? A. Approximately half an hour, between 2235 and 11:30 I carried out that examination. Then photographs from some fingerprint impressions that Staff Sergeant Bowes had been working, I photographed those in black and white. And then after the photography those initial fingerprints that were developed by Staff Sergeant Bowes, then the removal service arrived and then further still photography was taken of the two deceased once they were moved. Q. Okay. And what's the purpose -- you indicated taking photographs of Michel Giroux's body and I'm not


966

sure if you said it in relation to Manon Bourdeau before they're moved; is that correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. All right. What's the purpose of that? A. Just to show their location and how they were found that night. Q. Okay. And then you indicate after the removal service and you're talking about that's the funeral home taking the bodies. A. Yes, as they were just being lifted up and photographed their facial area or where they lay just as they were being picked up. Q. Okay. And I gather the removal service are the people who take the bodies to the hospital then. A. That is correct, sir. Q. So we're at the point, then, I think where you indicated some additional photographs being taken in relation to the bodies or the location of the bodies where Manon Bourdeau and Michel Giroux lay after they had been removed; is that correct? What's the next thing that you did? A. At that time, once the bodies had been removed, I sealed the house with a CFS seal and secured it, locked the door. I had located some extra set of keys inside the house. The house was locked up and at 0040 hours, 12:40, on the 19th we stopped with the initial examination of the scene and the bodies had been removed and I proceeded back to Long Soo detachment. Q. Okay. Did you return to the scene and/or do further duties that night? A. Not that night, sir, no.


966

Q. Did you have anything further to do then I guess later on the 19th now? A. Yes, sir. On the morning of the 19th then I returned to the scene and I believe it was 10:05 I arrived at the scene and then I --- Q. You seem to have an amazing memory, Offi- cer. Look at your notes, feel free.

In any case you returned I think you said at about 10:10, did you say? A. I believe so, sir. Q. Okay. And maybe you can take us through what you did that day, then. As I understand it you were there for a number of days then during that weekend; is that correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. All right. If you can take us through what you did at various times. A. At 9:50 I arrived at the scene and then examined the -- prepared my equipment from continuation of examination of the scene and then further still photographs were taken of the exterior and the interior during the day starting from the roadway. Then at 11:09 I did the examinations of the footwear impressions that were there and I then cast them with the dental stone. Q. You mentioned that previously. Okay. A. Once they were cast then I concentrated my efforts on the inside of the house, an examination of the house, and exhibits were collected from the interior of the house. And then at 1500 hours I began measuring the house, the interior itself and the furniture in place, for reproduction of a scaled diagram.


966

Q. Okay. Those measurements assisted you in in fact the diagram that was prepared for the purposes of court today? A. Yes, sir, they were. Q. Okay. A. Then once the completion of the measurements were done I concentrated my efforts on some blood splatter on a china cabinet. And then at 1800 hours I picked up the footwear impressions that I had cast in dental stone, they had completely hardened by now, and at 1850 hours I sealed the house once again and I proceeded back to Long Soo for further work with video reproduction and making copies for the investigators. Q. Okay. Any further duties besides those that you've mentioned on the 19th? A. No, sir. Q. What about the 20th? A. Yes, sir, again on the 20th I returned to the scene. At 09:53 I arrived and the investigators were not at the scene at this time. I met with the security officers that were there and they advised me that they were at the extended services office in Orleans and I attended there, turned over copies of the videotape to Constable Lamarche and Inspector Okmanas, and Constable Fortier then provided me with a roll of film that he had taken on the 19th, excuse me, on the 18th of January prior to even my arrival. Q. All right. And you have in fact incorpo-rated those into the book of photographs that has been prepared for this court? A. Yes, sir, there were six photographs that he took.


966

Q. All right. And I gather he took those before your arrival on the 18th. A. That is correct, sir. Q. All right. And you've had a chance to look at them. Are you able to say if they accurately represent the scene? A. Yes, sir, they do. Q. Okay. You then take possession of Constable Fortier's photographs? A. I took possession of his roll of film ---

Q. Yes? A. --- undeveloped and then I returned to the

scene, and at 1050 hours I returned and I again seized some exhibits and I searched the residence for a large sum of money that I was advised to search for, drug paraphernalia and any quantity of drugs, and my search --- Q. In relation to that, you were advised to search for by who? A. It was Constable Lamarche and Inspector Okmanas. Q. Okay. So they instructed you --- A. Yes. Q. --- to look for those specific items. A. Yes, they were. Q. Okay. Did you find any large sum of money? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. Okay. And did you find $7,000. in cash? A. No. Q. Okay. And in relation to the remainder, did you find any drug paraphernalia?


966

A. There was drugs found within the house, yes, sir. Q. Okay. We can refer to that later. It's in fact visible in the photographs? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Anything else in relation to the search that night you wish to indicate at this point? We will be going through the photographs. A. Upon completion and the seizure of exhibits from inside the house on the 19th I then photographed two vehicles at the bottom of the hill in a garage area just adjacent to Queen Street, on the south side of Queen Street. One was a --- Q. Okay. You've incorporated those photographs in the book of photographs too? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. A. And that completed my initial examination of the house and the scene. Q. What time was that that you photographed the two cars? A. It was at 1635, sir. Q. Okay. 4:35 in the afternoon. A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. In relation to that, where were they located in relation to the house? A. They were located at the bottom of a small hill or incline approximately 30 metres from the house. Q. Okay. After you took those photographs did you have anything further to do at the scene on that day? A. No, sir.


966

Q. Okay. And subsequent days was there anything further at the scene? A. No, sir, there was not. Q. Okay. And I gather on subsequent days you did over the next few years take additional photographs? A. Yes, sir, I have. Q. And we've included those? A. Yes, sir, you have. Q. Now - the Court's indulgence - you've indicated in fact, I guess your computer training assisted you in preparing a diagram.

If I could see Exhibit E, please. I'm showing you what is Exhibit E. If you can take

a look at it and tell us if you recognize that. A. Yes, sir, this is the diagram that I prepared for this court. Q. Okay. It's a diagram of what? A. It's the main floor of the Giroux-Bourdeau residence at 1222 Queen Street. Q. Okay. And as I understand it in fact, I suppose it is a hard copy or a paper copy, did you also prepare an overhead of the same thing? A. Yes, sir, I have. Q. All right. And in fact that's set up on the overhead there? A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. All right. Maybe we can set it up, we can illuminate it. We'll have some discussion about it. Okay. Madam Reporter can tell us if he's clear enough. Do you see the microphone there? She has to try to pick it up so make sure. Thank you.


966

Now if you can describe for us, first of all is that an overlay of the same diagram you've just indicated or an overhead of the same diagram? A. Yes, sir, it is an overhead of the original that was Exhibit E entered in court previously. Q. All right. Maybe you can explain to us what in fact is shown? A. Yes, sir. In the overhead itself on the extreme right-hand side of the overhead you have a patio area which runs to the east of the main entrance into the kitchen area. Then there's the kitchen area itself, the sink, stove and then which leads into a dining room area which also then leads back into the living room area adjacent to the dining room area. There are two bedrooms in the house itself, one referred to as the master bedroom and the other one is just on the northwest corner or the lower portion of the overhead is just a bedroom area.

On the very top of the overhead in the upper right-hand -- upper left-hand corner is the bathroom area and adjacent to that is a hallway, a washer and dryer, and what is also referred to as a storage area, and this storage area it's twofold in that it also had a trap door which led down a set of stairs to the basement area. Q. Okay. Now, I think you indicated before you took measurements and you indicated when you did in fact take them. Do those measurements in fact assist in relation to this diagram and in fact we see it has some dimensions on the top of this and on the side? A. Yes, sir. The diagram itself was prepared by myself and it is from basically north to south where the east wall was 28 feet and seven inches in length and the north


966

wall from the east corner to the west corner, which is the bottom of the overhead, was 32 feet and five inches in length. Those were the exterior dimensions of the house. Q. All right. And just for purposes of, in fact it's visible on there, you've actually listed the metric measure as well at 9.88 I believe along the wall of the two bedrooms and it appears to be 8.71 along the back and storage area? A. That is correct, sir. On the left-hand side of the diagram it's indicated also in metric and on the very top portion it is metric. Q. We have at least two blue figures drawn in. Could you indicate what those are? A. Yes, sir. With the measurements of the bodies these are the position, the first one being in the -- the head area in the master bedroom area and the feet extending into the dining room area, this was the deceased Michel Giroux. The second body was located inside the master bedroom beside the bed and against the west wall, her head was between the bed itself, a night stand and a garbage pail. Q. Okay. And in relation to each of those, to the right of her head there we have -- what is that? A. To the right of her head as she is face- down would be a garbage pail. Q. Okay. And above her head is the night table? A. Yes, sir, that is correct. Q. All right. And the bed is apparent on the left-hand side of her, to the left of her? A. Yes, sir.


966

Q. Okay. You have something drawn in in red marked 52 degrees and 11 feet and 15 feet. Can you explain that? A. Yes, sir. There's a piece of 1x6 trim that I seized from the house, and this 1x6 piece of trim was taken to the firearms lab at the RCMP here in Ottawa and measurements were conducted on that piece of trim and the information that I received was that the projections or the projectile that entered that piece of wood entered at a 52-degree angle. Q. Okay. I gather in relation to that, then, that's information the expert will detail. You were simply given that it was a 52-degree angle; is that correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. All right. And that's what you led you to draw at least that angle. A. That is correct, sir. Q. And where we're coming from is, when you say at 52 degrees, we're talking at 52 degrees from the flat as if we have a line drawn directly in front of the 1x6 and 52 degrees away from it, away from the flat area; is that correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. All right. And then once we take that angle, 11 and 15 feet, what led you to that? A. Yes, yourself and one of the other Crowns, Vikki Bair, indicated that they wished measurements of 11 and 15 shown on the diagram itself. Q. All right. You've simply drawn a line 52 degrees and marked off what 11 and 15 feet on that line is, along that line is. A. That is correct, sir.


966

Q. Okay. And we can rely on another witness to explain the significance; is that correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. That's fine. Thank you.

MR. DANDYK: I wonder if the overhead could be the next exhibit, I believe it's 45?

THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Exhibit 45, Your Honour. THE COURT: Thank you.

EXHIBIT NO. 45: Transparency - layout of house 1222 Queen Street MR. DANDYK: And I suppose we could make the paper copy, which was originally E, 45A maybe.EXHIBIT NO. 45A: Diagram - layout of house -

1222 Queen Street

MR. DANDYK: And I can indicate at this point, I'm not sure if the original copies are there, I can provide copies for the jurors additionally if they retain them or not if it's of assistance as we go along because Officer Payne may wish to refer to it.

THE COURT: So the paper copy is 45A, right?MR. DANDYK: Yes, exactly. THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.MR. DANDYK: So I can provide copies for those jurors who don't have theirs. I can indicate if additional copies are required they're on the computer and they can be copied. I don't believe I have a full 12. Thank you.

Q. Now then, Officer Payne, I understand as well that you -- in fact you've indicated you took a scene video; is


966

that correct?


966

A. Yes, sir, I have. Q. Okay. We'll turn that off and we'll bring the television set forward. If you can in fact turn it on and set it up so we're ready for the video, I'll ask you to take us through it. And this, I think you indicated previously, was the video you prepared on the evening of the 18th shortly after your arrival. A. Yes, sir, it was.

Q. Okay.

--- Videotape played MR. DANDYK: If you can stop it for a moment. Q. Whose voice is it that we hear?

A. That is my voice, sir.

Q. All right.

--- Videotape played MR. DANDYK: I'd like to stop you there.

Q. To the left of I guess where we are right now what are those windows or sliding doors, where do they lead into? A. Those would be the sliding doors, sir, into the residence itself. Q. Okay. And what room do they lead into? A. They would lead into the living room area.

Q. All right.

--- Videotape playedMR. DANDYK: If you could stop there.


966

Q. At least from the back of the rear of the house what -- there seems to be some kind of hay wagon or something. What is that? A. Yes, sir, as indicated on the time indicator at 7:48 just north from the house itself is a wagon and just between the wagon itself and the house is a pile of wood. Q. Okay. And when you indicated this portion of the house, what are we looking at, at least what do these windows lead into? A. The windows on the north side, the first one up in the upper right-hand corner of the screen itself would lead into a bedroom which is indicated just by the bedroom itself. The next window almost in the centre of the screen itself would lead into the master bedroom. Q. And that's where the bodies, that's where the bodies of Manon Bourdeau and Michel Giroux were found. A. That is correct, sir.

Q. Okay. Go on.

--- Videotape played MR. DANDYK: I wonder if you could stop at this point.

Q. We hear some noise in the background, what was that? A. The noise that you're hearing at 7:59 on the screen is the television sets are on, one in the living room and one in the master bedroom. Q. Okay. And you indicated earlier in your testimony that you believe it was a 15-watt bulb or a desk type lamp in the master bedroom. Is that visible in this photograph?


966

A. Yes, sir, it is, just above the body in the doorway itself and at the very top of the screen there is a lamp that is turned on. Q. Okay. Aside from the t.v. set which you indicated was on as well, then, was there any other lighting in that master bedroom? A. Other than the t.v. itself, no, there was not.

Q. Okay. All right. Go on.

--- Videotape played MR. DANDYK: Maybe you could stop there for a

second. Q. You indicated as well that in fact there were

some blood spatter on the china cabinet I think you said; is that correct? A. Yes, sir, that is correct. Q. I'm wondering, is that visible in this portion of the video? A. Yes, sir, it is, it would be at 7:59 on the screen itself and on the right-hand side of the screen there was what appears to be a china cabinet and there are two glass doors and then to the left of that an open area, and the blood splatter was located on the second door, on the glass itself. Q. Okay. And we in fact have a number of photographs that show that more clearly later on as part of the photo book; is that correct? A. That is correct, sir.

Q. Okay. Go on.

--- Videotape played MR. DANDYK: If you would stop there.


966

Q. That's the telephone I gather. A. Yes, sir, at 8:00 p.m. on the screen the telephone was ringing as I was videotaping the scene. Q. Okay. Was that phone answered? A. No, sir, it was not.

Q. Okay. Go on.

--- Videotape played MR. DANDYK: If you would stop at this point for

a second. Q. Is this the way the light was in the room or

is this artificially lit with the video camera? A. It is also artificially lit. I did have a 100-watt light on top of the camera assisting me in videoing the scene. Q. Okay. When you say a 100-watt light on the video camera, how is that set up, where is that light directed? A. Yes, sir, the light itself is attached to the Camcorder and it's on top of the Camcorder being held there and a battery pack around my waist for the source of the power for the lamp itself. Q. Is that in the nature of a spot, then, basically? A. Yes, sir, that's correct.

Q. Okay. THE COURT: Q. I'm sorry, Sergeant, I didn't pick up the time that the telephone rang. I thought you gave it. A. Yes, sir, on the screen time it was 8:00 o'clock.

THE COURT: 8:00 o'clock? Thank you very much.


966

--- Videotape played MR. DANDYK: If you could stop there. Q. We continue to hear a background noise. You indicated before a television set. Is this anything different or is this still the t.v. set? A. Those are the t.v. sets, sir. Q. All right.

A. That would be the one in the living room area.

Q. All right. And where are we now?

A. On the screen at 8:01 p.m. we've just entered

the bedroom area, that would be the northwest bedroom. ---

Videotape played MR. DANDYK: If you could stop for a second

there. Q. In relation to these we seem to go from one

room to another and so on, and you indicated I think earlier, at least your voice did, about moving to a new location. Is this a stop start thing, that you move to a new location and start shooting again? A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. That's how it works? Okay. And then the time is the time it actually happens. A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right.

--- Videotape playedMR. DANDYK: I would like to stop there.

Q. Above Michel Giroux there's a drawer that is open?


966

A. Yes, sir, at 8:03 p.m. on the screen I've moved inside the master bedroom standing at the end of the bed and I focused my attention towards Michel, and on the bureau to the left of him the top drawer was open. Q. In the way we see it. A. That's correct, sir.

Q. Okay.

--- Videotape played MR. DANDYK: If you could stop there.

Q. Is Manon Bourdeau visible or was she visible to you at that time? A. I stopped the video at 8:04 on the screen and I'm inside the dining room area facing northwest into the master bedroom and I cannot see the deceased Manon Bourdeau between the wall and the bed. She was below the bed itself. Q. Okay. And I notice as well in this photograph at least there appears to be a reflection of the t.v. set? A. Yes, sir, in the mirrored doors. The t.v. would be at the extreme right-hand side of the screen, in the middle, and the reflection would be in the centre of the screen.

Q. Okay.

--- Videotape played MR. DANDYK: Stop there.Q. These are obviously -- this is obviously the

pellet damage in the 1x6; is that correct? A. Yes, sir, I stopped the video at 8:04 and I just moved to my right from the master bedroom and the wall


966

that is going to the bathroom area and now I'm focusing in on the shotgun pellets to the 1x6. Q. Okay. And is this the 1x6 that the 52 degree comes off of, as far as the start of that 52-degree angle; is that correct? A. That is the piece of wood that those measurements were obtained from, yes, sir. Q. Okay. And as well when we stopped there appeared to be the sign of a cat; is that correct? A. Yes, sir, in the video the cat had been placed into the bathroom and the mike was picking up its voice in the bathroom area.

Q. All right.

--- Videotape playedMR. DANDYK:

Q. This is washer and dryer we're passing? A. Yes, sir, at 8:12, as indicated the time on the screen, I have just turned to my right and I'm now facing basically to the south and the washer and dryer will be on the right-hand side of the screen and the downstairs stairs is in the centre of the screen.

Q. Okay.

--- Videotape playedMR. DANDYK: Stop there for a moment.THE COURT: I wonder, counsel, you have a fair amount left I think?MR. DANDYK: There's a fair amount of evidence. I'm not sure how much is left on the video, I don't think it's that much, but it's appropriate, we can stop here. We can restart. That's


966

fine.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.--- Whereupon court recessed at 1:00 p.m.

* * * * * * * *--- Upon resuming at 2:15 p.m.

--- Accused present

RANDALL DAVID PAYNE, resumes on the stand THE COURT: Yes.


EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF (continued) BY MR. DANDYK: Q. Officer Payne, as I understand we were in the midst of the scene video? A. Yes, sir, we were.

Q. Okay. Would you continue then.

--- Videotape playedMR. DANDYK: If we can stop there. Maybe back it up slightly. There. Stop there. Q. What is it, if you can indicate, what's

visible where we stop here? A. Yes, sir, at 8:13 on the video in the centre of the screen there is some empty pop bottles, an empty Javex bottle or a detergent bottle and a grocery bag to the left of the plastic container and to my recollection there was recyclable jars and glassware in that bag.

Q. Okay. Go on.

--- Videotape played MR. DANDYK: Stop there.


966

Q. There appears to be something darker in the background next to the wall? A. Yes, sir, again at 8:13 on the video on the right-hand side towards the back wall there's a green garbage bag and again to the best of my recollection it was just re- cycled old garbage.

Q. Okay. Go on.

--- Videotape played MR. DANDYK: Stop there.

Q. There appears to be -- at 8:14 there seems to be a phone ringing again? A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. Okay. Was that picked up? A. No, sir, not by me.

Q. Okay.

--- Videotape playedTHE WITNESS: I stopped the video at 10:20. I'd completed videoing the basement area and during the still photography I then found Manon Bour- deau and I revideoed from 10:20 on her location and that's this time now.

MR. DANDYK: Okay.

--- Videotape playedMR. DANDYK: And again if I can stop here.

Q. Are you still using the spot in relation to these shots, the spotlight? A. Yes, sir, I am.

Q. Okay. Go on.

--- Videotape played


966

MR. DANDYK: Q. That's the end of the video? A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. Okay.

MR. DANDYK: Thank you.

If that could be the next exhibit, I believe it's 46?

THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Exhibit 46, Your Honour. THE COURT: Yes.

EXHIBIT NO. 46: Videotape of the scene MR. DANDYK: Q. Now then, Officer, I gather you took a series of slides and also prepared photographs as well that correspond. If I might have a moment we'll set that up. A. Yes, sir.

MR. DANDYK: Now I wonder if we could ask that the back light be turned off. Thank you.

Q. Now then, Officer, I understand you took a series of photographs which we're about to go through and in fact slides of the same evidence; is that correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. Maybe you can take us through those and if you can indicate as you progress when they were taken and in fact what they depict. A. Yes, sir. The first photograph is an aerial view taken on the 8th day of June, 1990. In the centre of the photograph with the green roof is the location of the Giroux-Bourdeau residence. The road running from the bottom left-hand of the photograph up to the top of the top right-hand of the photograph would be Queen Street. The Laporte signs would be located just


966

to the left-hand side of Queen Street located on -- the west one here and then the other one to the east side of the Laporte Nursery going up to the left-hand corner of the photograph. Q. Okay. And as well maybe you can point out the laneway that leads up to the house. A. Yes, sir. The laneway would be in the centre of the photograph and it comes towards the bottom of the photograph, and then located just to the bottom of the house is the driveway area and the parking area for 1222 Queen Street. Q. Okay. And you indicated as well that there were a couple of cars that you photographed closer to the road. Could you indicate where that area is? A. Yes, sir, the cars that were photographed on the 20th of January would be located down near the garage just to the left of the main house and be located just to the right or to the south side of Queen Street. Q. Okay. Anything further of note? No? Okay. Go on. A. The second photograph again taken on the 8th of June, 1990, at the very bottom of the screen or of the photo-graph, located almost in the centre a green roof of the Giroux and Bourdeau residence and just to the right of that is the driveway that goes back towards Queen Street to the right- hand side at the bottom. The garages would be located just to the left of Queen Street. Q. Okay. And when you say the garages this is where the cars were parked in front that you took pictures of on the 20th? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay.


966

A. And again from the bottom right-hand side of the photograph going up towards the centre of the screen would be Queen Street towards the west. Q. Okay. And are the Laporte -- signs for the Laporte Nursery visible in this aerial shot? A. Yes, sir, they are. Just at the very bottom portion of the photograph, the first one to the west of the driveway to the Giroux-Bourdeau residence is located to the bottom of the driveway to the Laporte Nursery, and then the further one on the west side is located again west of the Laporte driveway. Q. Okay. So I gather those signs then are placed on either side of the driveway so they're visible coming in either direction. A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. A. The next photograph was taken again by myself on the 7th of May, 1991. This is an aerial view. The location of the residence is the green roof and it's almost to the centre of the photograph and to the right of Queen Street. Again the Laporte signs are located down further towards the bottom of the photograph, one being on the west side of the Laporte driveway and then the other one to the east side of the Laporte driveway nursery which runs off towards the left-hand side.

Q. Okay. A. The road from the bottom right-hand corner through the centre of the photograph and up to the left-hand corner is Queen Street facing east. Q. Okay. Before we continue, are you able or if you need to check your notes to tell us the distance from


966

the Laporte driveway to in fact the driveway that leads up to the Giroux-Bourdeau residence? A. From the centre of the Laporte driveway to the centre of the Giroux-Bourdeau driveway is 49.5 metres, sir. Q. Okay. When you say, then, 49.5? A. Yes , sir. Q. Okay. When you say the centre of, where are you taking it, obviously the middle of the driveway, but in comparison to Queen Street? A. I'm on Queen Street on the south shoulder and I'm in between the east side of the Laporte Nursery driveway and the west side of the Laporte Nursery driveway on the south end side of Queen Street, the measurement was taken from that area to the middle of the driveway to the Bourdeau-Giroux residence. Q. And the extremities or the edge of Queen street then in both ends? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay.

A. The next photograph was taken by myself on the 18th of January, 1990. I would be facing to the north showing the south entrance to the Giroux-Bourdeau residence. The items in the photograph starting at the bottom are crates, either wood or cardboard, which would be covering footwear impressions. Q. Okay. This is photograph 4, by the way, is it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Maybe as you go along as well if you can keep up the numbering for purposes of the record.


966

A. Photograph number 5 again was taken by myself on the 18th of January, 1990. I'm standing on the porch facing the east showing the entrance to the kitchen area and the screen door was shut and the interior door is just ajar. Q. Okay. In relation to that photograph there appears to be a light reflecting in the screen door on the glass, right-hand corner at the top. A. Yes, sir, in the photograph right in the glass of the screen door that would've been activated by my flash. In photograph number 6 I would've just entered in through the screen door and then just parallel with the wood door and I turned to my left and I photographed the scene as I found it, the deceased laying on the floor with his head towards the bedroom area and his feet towards the dining room area. Photograph number 7 I'm facing to the northeast, just moved inside further into the dining room area and photo-graphed the subject laying there on the floor. Photograph number 8 is a close-up view of the pellet marks that were on the 1x6, in the photograph it would be up towards the right-hand corner of the photograph. Just to the left of the picture that was running off from the right- hand side of the photograph the pellet marks were in this area here. Again photograph number 9 depicting the same as the previous photograph, number 8. Again the pellet marks to the 1x6 are to the left of the picture frame that is on the right-hand side. Q. Okay. Again in this photograph you indicated earlier in your testimony a lamp or what appeared to be


966

something akin to a desk lamp being on in the master bedroom, a 15-watt bulb. Is that visible? A. Yes, sir, that's correct. The two lamps inside the bedroom on the bureau, the first one being at the very bottom of the photograph which is not on and the second one which is to the left of the first lamp towards the left side of the photograph, and that photograph has an orange glow to it indicating it was on, sir. Q. And for these photographs taken inside the house did you or did you not use a flash for these? A. They're all flash still photography, sir. Q. Okay. A. This photograph I've stepped inside --- Q. This is number 10? A. Sorry. Yes, sir. Q. That's fine. A. In photograph number 10 I've stepped inside the bedroom and I've turned around facing the southeast showing Michel Giroux at that time. Q. Okay. Number 11? A. Photograph number 11 again was taken by myself on the 18th of January, 1990. This is an exterior shot showing the east side and the north side of the Giroux-Bourdeau residence. Q. Okay. A. Photograph number 12 is again facing to the south, showing the north side and the east side of the Giroux residence. In the centre of the photograph just behind the tree there is the hay wagon which is located in the centre of the photograph.


966

Q. Okay. The same hay wagon we saw in the video? A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. Okay. And I gather the wood then is not visible in this photograph is behind it or is partially visible on the bottom, underneath? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. A. Photograph number 13, taken on the 18th of January, 1990, I'm facing to the east showing the location of the west side and the south side of the house and the entrances to the residence it itself. Photograph number 14 again facing to the north I'm showing the entrance to the house. In the centre of the photograph is the main entrance to the house into the kitchen area. Photograph number 15 taken again on the 18th of January, 1990 by myself, I'd be facing to the northeast showing the residence to the east of 1222 Queen Street, the address is believed to be 1226 Queen Street. Q. Okay. How far was that house in the background from the Giroux residence? A. The distance between the southeast corner of the residence to the residence to the east was 39 feet and five inches, sir. Again photograph number 16 I'd be facing to the east showing the residence to the south of 1222 Queen Street, and this is the house on the right-hand side which has the red trim and white siding, and this house was vacant at the time. Q. Okay. And what distance was that from the Giroux residence?


966

A. I'll just check my notes. Q. Sure. A. The distance between this house and the southeast corner was 53 feet and six inches. Q. Okay. A. Photograph number 17, taken on the 18th of January, 1990, I'd be facing to the east showing the west side of the residence, the patio doors into the living room, two exterior lights which are on, and then to the right of the patio doors is the main entrance into the house. Photograph number 20 taken on the 18th of Janu- ary, 1990 --- Q. I believe 18. A. Pardon me? Photograph 18? Q. Yes. A. I skipped ahead. Sorry.

Q. That's fine.A. Photograph 18 taken on the 18th of January,

1990 I've propped open the screen door and I just photographed inside in towards the kitchen area. Photograph number 19 taken on the 18th of Janu- ary, 1990 I've just moved inside in the front doorway and photo-graphed the kitchen area. Q. Okay. If you can stop there. I notice on the right at least there appears to be a silver object, what is that? A. Yes, sir, in the very right-hand portion of the photograph running at a diagonal down towards the bottom of the photograph there is a silver handle, that handle belongs to the freezer of the fridge.


966

Q. Okay. As I understand it you were provided a fingerprint, R-8, which comes off of that refrigerator and asked to compare it to one Dave Dunbar, I believe? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Okay. And what were you able to find in relation to, first of all was it a fingerprint or a palmprint in your comparison? A. It was a palmprint, sir.

Q. Okay.A. It was Staff Sergeant Bowes who developed it.

Q. All right. And what was the conclusion as to your comparison? A. It was not identified to Mr. Dave Dunbar. Q. Which means what "not identified to"? A. I could not make a match from the impression that was obtained from R-8 to the palm impressions of Mr. Dunbar. Q. Were there any common characteristics between those two prints? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. Thank you.

Now I'm confused as to timing. This is 19. A. Photograph number 20 taken on the 18th of January, 1990 I've just moved inside the kitchen area and turned to the left, I'm facing to the north, just showing the kitchen area and the dining room area. Photograph number 21 taken on the 18th of Janu- ary, 1990 again I've just moved over from -- in line with the front door and showing the position of the deceased Michel Giroux.


966

Photograph number 22 I moved inside into the kitchen and I've turned around and now I'm facing back towards the front doorway, and on the right-hand side of the photograph is the entranceway into the living room area. Photograph number 22 --- Q. 23. A. 23, photograph number 23 I'm just showing the kitchen floor area and the mats leading into the residence and the carpeting on the floor. Photograph number 24 taken on the 18th of Janu- ary, 1990 I moved inside into the dining room area facing back into the kitchen area, facing south, showing the kitchen area itself. Photograph number 25 I'm facing to the east showing the dining room area, the dining room table is in the centre of the photograph and the china cabinet just to the right of the dining room table. Q. Okay. You discussed earlier in your evidence about certain blood on the cabinet in the dining room and specifically on one of the glass doors. A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. Is that visible in this photograph? A. Yes, sir. The china cabinet door would be the one directly in the centre of the photograph and the china door itself and the glass portion would be in this area in the photograph directly dead centre being the location of the blood splatter. Q. Okay. And is Michel Giroux at all visible in this photograph? A. Yes, sir. Just off to the left of the dining room table you can just see his torso and white t-shirt


966

just to the left of the dining room table. Q. Okay. 26? A. Photograph number 26 taken on the 18th of January, 1990 I moved beside the china cabinet or into the hallway to the bathroom/basement area and facing to the west showing the dining room, kitchen and the living room areas. Q. Okay. 27? A. Photograph number 27 taken on the 18th of January, I'm facing to the west showing the living room area. Q. Okay. A. Photograph number 28 taken on the 18th of January, 1990 I've moved to the southwest corner of the living room and facing back towards the dining room area showing the contents of the living room and the dining room area.

Q. Okay. A. Photograph number 29 I moved inside to the second bedroom to the northeast corner and I was focusing on the right-hand side of the photograph is the entrance from the living room area and then over to from the left of the door is a cupboard with jackets inside the cupboard. Q. Again it may in fact be more visible on the photograph. If we can go back for a moment. There seems to be at least blue jackets in that closet. A. Yes, sir, there are, there's two blue jackets. Q. All right. And you had occasion to examine a blue jacket and the pocket of a blue jacket for certain contents. Do these jackets have anything to do with the jacket we'll be talking about later on? A. Yes, sir, it does.


966

Q. Being what? Was the jacket you later examined one of those two jackets? A. Yes, sir, in the cupboard hanging there's two identical jackets. In one of the jackets in the right-hand pocket I obtained some drugs. Q. Okay. Now in relation to this room we see a jacket on the floor there. A. Yes, sir. At the bottom portion of the photograph there's a jacket laying on the floor. Q. Okay. And maybe you can move to the next photograph now, 30. A. Photograph 30 taken on the 18th of January, 1990 I've just moved in front of the closet area and shooting back to the northeast corner of the bedroom, and in the bottom left-hand corner of the photograph is the jacket that was laying on the floor and then moving up into the centre of the photograph is a fake artificial flower tree that is laying across on the floor towards the north wall. Q. Okay. Now, obviously we're going to be looking at other photographs, did you find any other area in the house that appeared to be at least out of order or disturbed in any way besides this scene? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. And in relation to this scene, aside from obviously seeing that artificial plant leaning over on the ground and the jacket, did you examine that scene, that room? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Okay. Was there evidence of any struggle? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. Is there anything else in that photo-graph for your purposes?


966

A. No, sir. Q. Okay. 31, then, the next one. A. Photograph 31 taken on the 18th of January, 1990 I'm just photographing the location of Michel Giroux, he'd be in the bottom left-hand corner of the photograph, his feet in the dining room area and his head up in towards the bedroom area. Photograph number 32 taken on the 18th of Janu- ary, 1990 again it's just a close-up shot of the pellet marks to the 1x6 in the centre of the photograph. Q. We have the master bedroom on the left I gather, the entrance to the master bedroom on the left. A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. A. Photograph number 33 showing the position of Michel Giroux with his feet inside the dining room area and the head and torso area towards the bedroom area. Just above his head there is a drawer from a lady's bureau that has been opened. Q. And is that the same drawer that we saw in the video? A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. Okay. A. Photograph number 36 --- Q. 34. A. Photograph number 34 taken on the 18th of January, 1990 and I'm just showing a lady's bureau with the drawer being pulled open and the lamp in the centre of the photograph which is on. Photograph number 35 taken on the 18th of Janu- ary, 1990 in the centre portion of the photograph below the bed


966

area are Michel Giroux's slippers, above the bed in the centre of the photograph is the t.v., and then to the left of the t.v. the mirrored doors, you can see its reflection on the mirrored doors itself. Photograph number 36 was taken on the 18th of January, 1990. I'm standing in the northeast corner of the bedroom facing to the east, showing the position of the bed. On the right-hand side of the photograph just beyond the bed you can see the right foot of Manon Bourdeau and the right foot reflection in the mirrored doors. Photograph number 37 again taken on the 18th of January, 1990 and again depicting the northeast corner of the bedroom facing to the east, photographing the position of Manon Bourdeau, and again on the right-hand side of the photograph just past the bed you can see the right foot of Manon Bourdeau and the reflection in the glassed mirrors. This is facing to the south --- Q. 38. A. Photograph number 38 taken on the 18th of January, 1990 I've moved to the north wall and facing to the south, I'm showing the position of Manon Bourdeau as she was found. Q. Okay. If we can stop there for a moment. I notice at least the bedspread. Did you have occasion first of all to seize that bedspread? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Okay.

I wonder if I could see Exhibit 38, please. Okay, I'm wondering if you could examine that and tell us if in fact you can identify that.


966

A. That would be the bedspread that I seized on the 19th of January, 1990 from the master bedroom. MR. DANDYK: If that could then be I believe it's

47? THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Exhibit 47, Your Honour.

EXHIBIT NO. 47: Bedspread MR. DANDYK: Okay. Q. Did you examine that bedspread on that day? A. On the 19th of January, 1990, yes, sir. Q. Okay. What, if any, observations did you make about the bedspread? A. On the 19th of January, 1990 I found that there was powdered propellant along the flat surface of the bed throughout the comforter itself and that's the reason why I seized it for the powder propellant that I detected on the bedspread itself. Q. And we notice at least from this photograph that Manon Bourdeau is very close to that comforter. A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Did you have occasion to check that bedspread, did you check that bedspread for blood? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. And were you able to see any blood or anything that looked like blood? A. I did not detect any blood splatter on the comforter itself, sir, no. Q. Okay. How did you examine it? A. On the 19th of January, using a 250-watt Tungsten light bulb, I was examining the entire room with that particular light and that's the light that I examined and


966

detected a powder -- the powder propellant and no sign of any blood splatter. Q. Okay. And we notice as well, at least in slide 38, that there's a gold pillow lying on the back of Manon Bourdeau. Did you have a chance to examine that pillow? A. Yes, sir, I looked at that pillow also on the 19th of January, 1990 and on the 18th of January, 1990. Q. Okay. And when you looked at that pillow you've just said using I think you said a 250-watt bulb, did you use the same bulb, the same lamp to examine this pillow? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. And what, if anything, did you observe? A. I did not detect anything on the pillow itself. Q. And did you then seize that pillow? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. And why not? A. I saw no evidentiary value to seize the pillow. Q. Okay. And did you detect anything, be it propellant or blood, from your examination of the pillow? A. I did not see the same type of propellant that I located on the bedspread as to the pillow. Q. Okay. And in relation to Manon Bourdeau here, there appears to be something black underneath of her that touches the wall there. Are you able to help us as to what that was? A. Yes, sir, in the photograph to the right of Manon Bourdeau's waist and under her right leg there's a black material. Q. Yes?


966

A. That black material is a set of jogging pants. Q. And I notice at least adjacent to her head and to the right, I'm referring to the diagram, you referred to a wastebasket. Is that the wastebasket you spoke about? A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. Okay. Aside from what you can see here did you have an opportunity to examine that at the time? A. On the 19th of January, 1990, yes, sir, I did examine the wastepaper basket. Q. All right. And what, if anything, was in it? A. I only found used tissues inside the wastebasket itself. Q. Okay. 39? A. Photograph 39 taken on the 18th of January, 1990, the photograph is showing the left hand-side, the position of Michel Giroux, and then on the right-hand side of the photograph towards the bottom right-hand portion is the deceased Manon Bourdeau. Q. Okay. Are you able to give us the distance between the two of them? A. The approximate distance between the two of them was 10 feet six inches I believe. Q. 40? A. Photograph 40 taken on the 18th of January, 1990 I'd be in front of the bathroom door facing to the south showing the laundry area, on the bottom right-hand portion of the photograph is the dryer and the washing machine, in the centre of the photograph there is a large opening and to the left of the large opening there's a trap door which is hinged.


966

This area was used as a twofold area: behind the curtains that I've moved and placed over the trap door is a clothes closet for clothes and paper items and some shoes, footwear, and then again the stairs leading to the basement would be located just at the bottom of the trap door in the centre of the photograph. Q. Okay. In relation to this photograph as well we later have a notebook page that's on the back of a cupboard door. Is any of that visible in this photograph? A. No, sir, it is not. The cupboard door would be located to the right of the dryer and above the dryer itself and it's hidden by the wall or the 1x6 framing towards the basement. Q. Okay. So it's just off of this photograph but it's in this area. A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. Okay. That's fine.

Photograph 41? A. Photograph number 40 --- Q. 41. A. --- 41 taken on the 18th of January, 1990 again this is just showing on the left-hand side of the photograph the trap door as it's hinged, the stair area and then the storage area. At the top portion of the photograph into the right is the area where clothing and shoes were kept. Q. 42. A. Photograph number 42 I've entered into the basement and I'm facing to the east. I'm showing the basement contents, two chairs, table, a television set downstairs. Q. 43. A. Photograph number 43 again is facing to the southwest taken on the 18th of January, 1990. I'm showing on


966

the left-hand side of the photograph is the heating system and then to the right of that a wood stove and above the wood stove in the background is some piled up wood. Photograph number 44 taken on the 18th of Janu- ary, 1990 I just moved inside the stairwell area and facing to the south showing again the heating system, in the centre of the photograph the wood stove. Q. 45? A. Photograph number 45 again taken on the 18th of January, 1990 I moved to the west side of the basement and facing to the east showing in the centre of the photograph the stairs coming down to the basement and then to the right of the stairs is a large quantity of one-gallon tin cans which had nails, bolts, hardware items inside those tin cans and that would be everything in that photograph. Q. Okay. 46? A. Photograph number 46 I'm facing to the east showing in the bottom right-hand corner of the photograph the wood stove and then to the left of that the heating system, and just in front of the heating system is a Minute Rice box of newsprint located right in front of the furnace itself. Q. Did you have an occasion to in fact examine that Minute Rice box or look at those items? A. I looked through the box and all I found was newsprint items in the box itself. Q. Okay. When you say newsprint items, what do you mean? A. Flyers, flyers from Canadian Tire. I did not detect or note the newspapers themselves. Q. Okay. Obviously you examined the rest of the house. Did you find any newspapers or newspapers piled up


966

--- A. No, sir, I did not. Q. --- at any point?

47? A. Photograph number 47 again facing to the southeast, on the left hand-side is the heating system, in the centre of the photograph is the wood stove itself and then to the right of the wood stove would be the wood that was piled up in the basement storage area. Q. 48? A. Photograph number 48 coming back up to the top of the stairs and I'd be facing to the north showing the bathroom as I found it on the 18th of January, 1990. Q. Well actually before we continue, I wonder in relation to 47 did you have occasion to check the stove? A. Yes, sir, I looked inside the stove. Q. And what, if anything, did you find? A. All I found was burnt ashes. Q. And before you finish, when you say burnt ashes, were you able to determine were they burning embers, were they warm, were they cold, or do you recall? A. There was no heat detected from the stove itself, it was cold and the ash appeared as burnt wood ash. Q. Okay. Back to 48 then. Yes, 48? Oh, that's 49? A. Photograph number 49 taken on the 18th of January, 1990 again showing the location of the bathroom on the right-hand side of the photograph, then there is a small section of wall to the left of the bathroom and then to the left of that small section is the entrance to the master bedroom, and in the bottom left-hand photograph is the patient Michel


966

Giroux. Q. Okay. And now we jump to 51? A. Photograph number 51 was taken on the 18th of January, 1990. Q. And the bed appears at least to be further away from her, what have you done here? A. Yes, this is before the removal service came in we slid the bed to the east of Manon Bourdeau and then I photographed, once the bed was moved, her location and the area around her, once the bed had been slid to the east of her, I'm showing the quantity of blood around her facial area. Photograph number 52 again I've come around to the bottom, the lower side of the bedroom, I'm facing to the south showing the location as the bed has been moved to the left of Manon Bourdeau and just the blood area around her head area. Q. Okay. Before we continue, we've discussed the bedspread and you've indicated -- Exhibit 47, you've indicated you examined that and could not see any trace of blood under I believe a 250-watt lamp? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. Did you have occasion to check the rest of the area around her, specifically I suppose the night table there, the end table and the wastebasket? A. Yes, sir. Again that would've taken place on the 19th of January, 1990 and again examining the bedroom with the 250-watt light and I did not deduct any blood splatter on those items being the garbage pail or the night stand itself. Q. Okay. And did you examine the wall at all beside the garbage pail or garbage can?


966

A. The surrounding area, yes, sir. Q. And did you detect any blood on the wall? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. Okay. 53? A. Photograph number 53 is just showing the location of Manon Bourdeau before she is removed. Q. And the sheet that we see on the bed and so on, what was that? A. This is from the removal service and she would be placed inside the white plastic body bag ---

Q. Okay.A. --- which is on the bed itself.

Q. 54? A. 54, I'm facing to the south, I'm showing the location of Manon Bourdeau and the bed has been moved to the left again, I'm just showing that area. Q. Okay. 55? A. Photograph number 55 taken on the 18th day of January, 1990 just lifting up her left arm and showing the blood around her facial area on the 18th of January, 1990. Q. 56? A. Photograph number 56 was taken on the 19th of January, 1990. I'd be on the north shoulder of Queen Street which would be at the bottom of the photograph itself, the house would be in the centre of the photograph behind the cedar trees which would be the house of Manon Bourdeau and Michel Giroux. To the right of the house and on the right-hand side of the photograph is the garage used by Giroux and Bourdeau and the two vehicles in front of the garage which were parked there. Q. Okay. 57?


966

A. 57 I'd be facing to the south on the 19th of January, 1990. I'd be on the south side of Queen Street and again I'm just showing the entrance to the residence as the driveway goes from the bottom right-hand side of the photograph and then slightly curves up to the centre portion and then up into the driveway area. In the centre of the photograph would be the Bourdeau-Giroux residence. Q. 58? A. Photograph number 58 taken on the 19th of January, 1990 I would be on the south side of Queen Street facing to the south. On the left-hand side of the photograph the location of the two vehicles, then the green garage at the front of the residence, and then to the right of the garage itself in the centre of the photograph at the back would be the Bourdeau-Giroux residence. Q. 59? A. Photograph number 59 taken on the 19th of January, 1990 I'd be halfway up the driveway facing to the east, showing the north side of the residence and the west side of the residence. To the left of the house which is located the hay wagon and in between the wagon and the house itself piles of wood. Q. 60? A. Photograph number 60 taken on the 19th of January, 1990 I moved to the east side, I'm standing beside the east side of the house of 1226 Queen Street and I'm showing the east side of the Bourdeau-Giroux residence. On the east side the exterior windows are covered in a plastic and on the north side the window to the master bedroom is covered with exterior plastic, however the bedroom window to the second bedroom does not have any plastic on it.


966

Q. Okay. 61. A. Photograph 61 taken by myself on the 19th of January, 1990 from the top of the photograph to the bottom of the photograph in the centre there is a tape measure that I placed along beside the piece of 1x6. The tape measure measured up approximately one metre and 58 centimetres to one metre 68 centimetres as being the height between the bottom pellets to the top pellets. Q. Okay. I wonder - leave that there if you could - if I could see 35, please.

I'm showing you a piece of 1x6 board. I wonder if you can take a look at it and tell us if you can identify that. A. Yes, sir, this is the piece of 1x6 as I referred to in photograph 61 and the shotgun blast and I have also indicated the distances between 160 and 170 that were as the height taken from the tape measure that I found. Attached to it also in a little vial are six pellets that I removed from the backside of the board on the 22nd of January, 1990.

MR. DANDYK: I wonder if that could then be made the next exhibit, I believe it's 48?

THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Exhibit 48, Your Honour.EXHIBIT NO. 48: Board with vial containing pellets attached

MR. DANDYK: Thank you. Q. 62? A. Again this a photograph taken by myself on the 19th of January, 1990. I'm just showing the location in the centre of the photograph the shotgun pellets to the 1x6, my tape measure to the right of that, and also in the hallway towards the picture frame there are indentations, one being on the picture itself, the frame portion of the light, and one on


966

the wall. Those were just indentations I believe from shotgun pellets. Q. Okay. A. Photograph 63 taken on the 19th of January, 1990, not clearly seen in the photograph itself or the slide there are white cards that I've placed on the floor, the first one being -- indicating number 7, the next one to the centre of the photograph at the very top number 8, one across from that on the right-hand side of the photograph in front of the south side frame to the hall/bathroom area would be number 9, and then just in front of the master bedroom door number 10, just underneath the outlet plug number 10. Those are just showing the areas where I picked up shotgun pellets. Q. Okay. Before we continue, I have at least a photograph open or the same photograph open, if you can indicate are the numbers clearer in the photograph? A. They're much clearer in the photograph than on the slide as depicted, sir. Q. Okay. That's fine.

64? I gather this is just a close-up of the location of the pellets which is indicated 7, correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. All right. A. Photograph 64 taken on the 19th of January, 1990 at the very left-hand side of the card indicating 7, just to the left there's a black mark which is a silver pellet, and just below my scale gray ruler approximately at the one-inch mark and just below it there is another pellet that I located. Those two pellets were seized and picked up. Q. Okay. 65?


966

A. Photograph number 65 taken on the 19th of January, 1990 just in the centre of the photograph above the number 8 in the upper right-hand corner of the card near my gray scale and then right in the corner there is one single pellet that was picked up. Q. 66? A. In photograph number 66 I'm showing the Exhibit number 9 in the gray ruler to the right of that and just above the gray ruler between the ruler and the 1x6 of the wall on the south side there is another single pellet that was picked up. Q. Okay. And 67? A. Photograph number 67 taken on the 19th of January, 1990 I'd placed the ruler just in the centre of the photograph above the number 10, and at the very start of the ruler on the left-hand side there is a single pellet and approximately halfway down towards the right another pellet located on the floor. Q. Stop there.

If I could see 39, please?If you can examine 39A through D and tell us if you

recognize those. A. Exhibit 39A, in the plastic bag there are two silver pellets and these are the two pellets that I retrieved from the area of number 7. Q. Okay. They're going to be put in together. Maybe examine them. Are they the same pellets as 7, 8, 9 and 10, a total of 6 pellets? A. Yes, sir, they are. Q. Okay.


966

MR. DANDYK: If those could then be I believe it's 49?

THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Exhibit number 49, Your Honour.

MR. DANDYK: Okay.THE COURT: Exhibit 49.EXHIBIT NO. 49: Six pelletsMR. DANDYK:

Q. Okay. 68? A. Photograph number 68 - the photograph would show it better - it was taken on the 19th of January, 1990. On the left-hand side of the entrance to the doorway there is a card that I have placed in between the door jamb and the wall, it has the number 11 on it. To the top of the photograph between the top of the door jamb and the wall I've placed a card number 12. To the right of that in the photograph there is a piece of 1x4 trim, brown in colour, and I placed the number 13 beside that. Number 14 being on the piece of 1x6. Those are my numbers referring to my exhibits that I had collected from that scene being a piece of moulding of the -- number 11 being a brown piece of moulding, number 12 being a brown piece of moulding, number 13 being a brown piece of moulding to the hallway/bathroom area, and number 14 being the piece of 1x6. Q. So 14 is in fact Exhibit 48 that we've already filed? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay.

MR. DANDYK: Before we go on actually. If I could see 37, please, and also I guess 36. Thank you.


966

Q. All right, I'm showing you 37 from a previous proceeding. I'm actually going to separate these. Can you take a look at them and clarify -- just if you could confirm, are these 11 and 12 from that photograph? A. Yes, sir, they are. Q. Okay. And as I understand it 11 is this longer piece which was on the left side of the doorway to the master bedroom; is that correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. MR. DANDYK: If that could then be I believe

it's 50? THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Exhibit number 50, Your

Honour. THE COURT: Yes.

EXHIBIT NO. 50: Long piece of brown moulding (bedroom)

MR. DANDYK: Q. And I gather the shorter piece is 12 which is the moulding that faces the top of the door from the bedroom; is that correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. And maybe I can ask you, why were these seized? A. The moulding number 11 was seized for fingerprint analysis and number 12 was seized due to the fact that on the piece of moulding it had damage to it and indentation and I was not sure what that was, whether a projectile had done that or if it was something else. Q. Okay. You indicated, at least in relation to the 1x6 which is Exhibit 48, you actually removed some pellets.


966

A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Okay. And did you remove any pellets from number 12 here? A. No, sir, I did not.

MR. DANDYK: If this could then be the next exhibit, which is I believe 51.

THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Exhibit 51, Your Honour. THE COURT: M'hmm-hmm.

EXHIBIT NO. 51: Short piece of brown moulding (bedroom)

MR. DANDYK: Q. Finally then I'm showing you again a long piece of moulding which you've already described as 13 which I believe is to the left of the archway leading to --- A. The bathroom and basement area, yes, sir. Q. And why was this seized? A. This piece was taken off as there was a possibility of indentations, again what I felt could be projec-tiles. As indicated just at the upper portion of the piece of 1x4 the very top I felt that that hole may have been a projectile that had caused it. MR. DANDYK: If that could then be 52 I believe? THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Exhibit 52, Your Honour.

THE COURT: Yes. All right.EXHIBIT NO. 52: Long piece of brown moulding

(hallway)

MR. DANDYK: Your Honour, I'm being informed that it's break time.THE COURT: This is the time. All right. MR. DANDYK: Thank you.THE COURT: Members of the jury, we'll take the


966

break now.


966

--- Whereupon court recessed at 3:26 p.m.

* * * * * * * *

--- Upon resuming at 3:47 p.m.

--- Accused present

RANDALL DAVID PAYNE, resumes on the stand THE COURT: Mr. Dandyk?


EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF (continued) BY MR. DANDYK:Q. Yes, Sergeant Payne, I believe we were at

slide 68? Yes. A. Yes, sir. Q. I think we'd actually finished describing it and filed certain exhibits from it or visible in it. If you could move on to the next slide, this is, as I understand, 69. A. Photograph 69 taken on the 19th of January, 1990 and this is just a photograph showing that the pieces of 4x4 and 1x6 have been removed from the doorways themselves. Q. Okay. And those are the ones in fact we've just filed as exhibits. A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. At this point I wonder if -- I'm going to ask you to check back on a couple of things. I noticed that I wanted to point out in relation to -- go back to 51. Okay. And if we look in 51 on the end table if you could tell us what you see on the end table. A. Yes, sir, on the upper right-hand portion of the photograph, photograph 51, on the bottom right-hand corner is an ashtray and just above that there's a cigarette


966

package, a Player's Light cigarette package, and just to the left of that is a drink with a Coke in it. Q. Okay. And then if you could go to 27 and maybe I could direct you to the coffee table and the items on the coffee table, particularly the red item. THE COURT: Is this 57? Sorry. MR. DANDYK: 27, Your Honour.

THE COURT: 27. Okay. Sorry.THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, on the coffee table on the bottom portion of the photograph to the left-hand side of the coffee table there's a red cigarette package, that is a DuMaurier cigarette package. MR. DANDYK:

Q. Okay. Fine. Thank you. If we can then move I believe now to 70. A. Photograph number 70 was taken by myself on the 19th day of January, 1990. It is showing the lady's bureau with the drawer open, and just above that in the centre of the photograph there's a jar and my fingerprint brush is there. I was examining the top of the lady's bureau and then proceeded in to examine the contents of the drawer that has been pulled out. Q. Okay. Before we continue actually, if you go back to 68 for a moment. Yes. I understand at one point subsequently above the 11 there, first of all can you tell us what you see in 68? A. Yes. In photograph number 68 the number 11 just above that is the thermostat in the photograph. It is not shown that well on the slide but the photograph does show it much better.


966

Q. Okay. I understand you were subsequently asked in fact to try to do a blow-up of that? You did a black and white blow- up of it? A. Yes, sir, I did. I did the surrounding area showing number 11 and the thermostat itself. Q. I'm showing you Exhibit 81 from a previous proceeding. If you could take a look at that and tell me if in fact that's a black and white blow-up that you did. Is that the blow-up? A. That is the blow-up that I did subsequently after. Q. Okay. And I wonder if you could tell us, at least looking now are you able at all to read any numbers specifically on the thermostat from that black and white? A. From the thermostat itself just -- there's a mark that runs from the top of the photograph down through number 11 and that is a scratch that is on the negative, but the numbers inside the thermostat it appears to have the number 71 on the thermostat.

MR. DANDYK: If that could be the next number, I believe it's 53?THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Exhibit 53, Your Honour.THE COURT: Okay.EXHIBIT NO. 53: Enlarged photograph of thermo-

stat

MR. DANDYK: Q. Now in relation to, you said 71, do you recall what the temperature was like in the house as far as how you felt what the temperature seemed? A. I did not make an accurate temperature reading


966

inside the residence. I was working in the residence on


966

the 19th and 20th and in the evening of the 18th, I found the temperature to be normal, the furnace did kick in every now and then and I was working in dress uniform and I found it to be normal, I didn't find it overly hot or substantially cold. Q. Okay.

Then we can go back I believe you were at 70. Yes. A. 70. Q. Anything further in relation to this? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. We can move on to 71 then. A. Photograph number 71, taken on the 19th of January, 1990, I removed the lady's bureau drawer shown in the previous photograph and placed them on the bed and photographed it, and then there were certain items that I obtained from that drawer itself. In the centre of the photograph --- Q. So this is the drawer that in fact was partially open. A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. Okay. A. In the centre of the photograph there's a piece of paper here which is a Royal Bank envelope indicating $ 13.50 was paid out at two hours for $ 5.50 per hour. Q. We can wait there.

If I could see 43, please. Thank you. If you could take a look at this item and tell us if you recognize that. A. Yes, sir, Exhibit number 43 is the name of Manon Bourdeau, it's from the 23rd to the 28th, 10th of '89, two and a half hours at five and a half -- at a rate of 5.50 for a total of $ 13.75.


966

Q. Okay. Is that the item you just described? A. That is the item that is depicted in the photograph.

Q. Okay.MR. DANDYK: If that could be then the next exhibit, I believe it's 54 then?

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 54, Your Honour.EXHIBIT NO. 54: Cellophane page containing

Royal Bank envelope

MR. DANDYK: If I could see 40 then. Thank you. Q. I'm showing you 40 and 54 from a previous

proceeding. I wonder if you could take a look at it, it appears to be a green covered notebook, if you recognize that. A. This notebook was retrieved from this drawer that is depicted in the photograph. In the photograph it's not shown very well, however it should be depicted on the right-hand side of the photograph in the right-hand portion of the drawer itself and this book was taken out from there, from that location. Q. Okay. And if we look at this book at least, at least on the first inside page there appears to be writing in red ink on the inside cover? A. Yes, sir, that's correct. Q. And on the first page there appear to be some numbers in blue ink. A. Yes, sir, there is. Q. Okay. And additionally I notice at least there appears to be some red or brownish or purplish sort of substance on those two pages. Can you tell us what that is? A. Yes, sir. Upon retaining the exhibit on the 19th of January I then subsequently fingerprinted that with a chemical known as ninhydrant and the discoloration to the note-


966

book was from the chemical ninhydrant to develop the finger-prints. Q. Okay. And did you -- in fact were you able to have a match or identify any prints in relation to that? A. Yes, off the rear of the notebook once it was examined I obtained a fingerprint lift from the rear and that matched up to the deceased Michel Giroux. Q. Okay. And when you say the rear, it's sort of the beige or the white back of this notebook? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay.

MR. DANDYK: If that could then be the next exhibit, I believe 56?

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number 55.MR. DANDYK: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm jumping the gun. Thank you.EXHIBIT NO. 55: Green notebook - metal binding

MR. DANDYK: If I could then see, it was 41.

Thank you. Q. I'm now showing you what was Exhibit 41 from a previous proceeding. If you can tell us if you recognize that. A. Yes, this piece of paper was again obtained from the drawer itself, it was located next to the green notebook, and then subsequently it was also treated with the chemical ninhydrant for fingerprint identification and I did develop fingerprints and identified Michel Giroux's prints on the piece of paper itself. Q. Okay. And where was that located? A. It would've been with the notebook in the side of the drawer either folded inside the book or just beside


966

it. Q. And this piece of paper appears to have writing in blue ink both the initials and/or I suppose some first names and arrows with numbers behind them? A. Yes, sir, that is correct. Q. A number of them with decimal points? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay.

MR. DANDYK: If that could then be the next exhibit, now I believe we're 56?

THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Exhibit 56, Your Honour. THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DANDYK: Thank you.EXHIBIT NO. 56: First page found in drawer

MR. DANDYK: And if I could see 42, please. Thank you.

Q. Now I'm showing you what was 42 at a previous proceeding. If you can take a look at that. A. This was a scarf box that I obtained from the drawer itself. The black and gold scarf was inside this box. It is not depicted in the photograph itself, it is underneath some of the material in the drawer itself but I obtained it from that area, and then it was subsequently examined with fingerprint powder and on it I developed Manon Bourdeau's prints and one print of Michel Giroux. MR. DANDYK: If that could then be I believe 57?

THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Exhibit 57, Your Honour. THE COURT: 57.MR. DANDYK: Thank you.EXHIBIT NO. 57: Paper bag with small silver box

containing black and gold scarf


966

MR. DANDYK:


966

Q. Anything else of note in this photograph? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. If we could move on to 72? A. Photograph number 72 is the other end of the lady's bureau which would be on the north side, and again it's the top drawer that has been pulled out. I pulled it out myself, it was not pulled out on that evening or any other time. However in the centre of the drawer there is a black wallet and I seized that black wallet. Also just above that you can see that this graying to the lady's bureau was done by my fingerprint powder. Q. Okay. And I notice, at least there appears to be a brown item with a strap hanging over the edge of the drawer there? A. Yes, sir, in the photograph in the centre of the drawer and to the right a brown lady's purse.

Q. All right.A. I examined that and there was nothing con-

tained inside that particular purse. Q. Okay. And you had indicated earlier at least one of your instructions was to look for a large quantity of money. Was the looking at this, I'm sorry you said purse? A. I believe it to be a lady's brown purse. Q. All right. Was that part of your search in relation to looking for any large quantity of money? A. No, sir, this was done prior to the ---

Q. All right.A. --- instructions of searching for a large sum

of money.


966

Q. Okay. And you've indicated you didn't find any large quantity of money in any case, in fact I think you said you found no money? A. I found a quantity of money inside the black wallet itself, ---

Q. Okay.A. --- a five-dollar bill, but no large sum of

money, no, sir. Q. All right. And in either drawer, did you check both drawers in relation to money, aside from you saying you did in the black wallet, did you find any other money? A. There is other money located but not in the bill type, it was only in a coin container in the second bedroom. In the bedroom there were some pennies, nickels, dimes, loonies that had been collected.

Q. Okay.A. That was the only other money that was

located inside the house. Q. And roughly did you calculate how much there was in change? A. No, I did not. Q. Okay. Was it a large quantity? If we say a large sum of money or a large quantity of money, did that --- A. It may have added up to approximately 20 to $ 30. Q. Okay.

If I could see 44m please. I'm showing you what was Exhibit 44 from a prev-

ious proceeding. If you can take a look at that. Okay. You seem to be pulling out -- you seem to have a black wallet with you


966

and you seem to be pulling out certain items out of it. First of all, is that the wallet in this picture? A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. And maybe we'll go through it, then. Have you taken everything out of it? A. I believe so. Q. Okay. Let's itemize what you find in it. A. There's the five-dollar bill that I ob-tained from the wallet. Q. Okay. A. There is a cheque from Drytex, Division of JWI Limited in the sum of $ 278. 69 and it is paid to the order of McFadden, Mike, RR 1, Navan, Ontario and his postal code number, plus there is other typing on the cheque. On the reverse side there is a cheque endorsement signature in the name of probably Mike McFadden. Q. I'm sorry, where was that found? A. That was inside the wallet also. Q. Inside the bill portion or ..... It doesn't matter. That's fine. A. It was all found within the bill portion but when I originally obtained it I believe it came from the bill portion also. Q. All right. The next item? A. This is a Players Light, John Players & Sons cigarette package top and it has the number 764-5517 and a Gaétan Dubois written on the slip of paper. Q. Okay. So this appears to be the same brand as was on the end table of this bedroom. A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay.


966

A. The next item is a Movies To Go Club customer I.D. card issued at the Pronto Orleans, 3022 St. John's (sic) Boulevard, the telephone number is 837-2288 and the validation number A47324 and the signature of M. Giroux, phone number of 833-0037. There's nothing on the other side except for some printing.

Next is a Ministry of Transportation and Commu- nications vehicle registration number of 453570, it is for a Yamaha, white in colour, the name on it is Sigouin, Jacques, 1541 Riverside Drive, Apartment 312, Ottawa, Ontario, and on the reverse of the ownership it has been signed as a signature of Jacques Sigouin.

The next item from the wallet is a ripped portion of a match cover from the Manager of Marcel C. Leduc of Carlsbad Springs. On the other side there's written 2450 South- vale, 712, buzz 095.

The next piece of paper in the wallet is just the Buxton card itself for identification, it is blank and a guarantee is on the other side. Q. Okay. This is the kind of card one would find when one purchases a wallet.

A. That is correct, sir. Q. And it's not filled out. A. That is correct. Next is an M & M Rigging Experts Limited for heavy equipment, there are two phone numbers on it, the representative is a Conrad Meilleur (613) is the area code 322-2750 and (613) 822-2165 and again from the Carlsbad Springs location. Next is just a photograph of a young child and on the back of the photograph is written Richard Sigouin, July


966

20th of 1988, he's three years old. Next is a photograph and written on the back of this one indicates Jennifer Bourdeau, 15, something written in French, I'm not too sure if I could make it out or not, soeur de Manon Bourdeau, 25, donné 1988. Q. Okay. You don't speak French I take it. A. No, not at all. Q. Okay. So you wouldn't know what sister of Manon Bourdeau is. A. No, I don't. Q. Okay. That's fine. A. The next is the Ontario driver's licence for Michel Giroux and the photographed portion of it and it is signed by Michel Giroux. The date of birth would be the 16th of August '65. The next item from the wallet is the health card, Ministry of Health, in the name of Giroux, M., RR1 Queen Street, Cumberland, K0A 1S0, the OHIP number is 05224266.

The last three items that I obtained from the wallet are three cheques for the Caisse Populaire in Orleans at 2591 Boulevard Street and St. Joseph in Orleans and they are not signed or filled out in any way. Q. So three blank cheques. A. That's correct, sir. Q. Okay. Thank you.

MR. DANDYK: The wallet and contents then will be the next exhibit, I believe 58?

THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Exhibit 58, Your Honour. THE COURT: Thank you.

EXHIBIT NO. 58: Black wallet and contents MR. DANDYK: Thank you.


966

Q. Anything else in this photograph? This is 72. A. No, sir. Q. Okay. If we can move on? A. Photograph number 73 taken on the 19th of January, 1990 these are the mirrored doors in the bedroom on the northeast corner and again indicating in greyish colouring on the mirrors themselves was I've fingerprinted that area and developed fingerprints from those doors. Those prints were all identified back to Michel Giroux, two of them, however, had insufficient detail for comparison purposes. THE COURT: This was number 73? MR. DANDYK: 73, Your Honour, yes.

THE COURT: Thank you.MR. DANDYK: Q. I'm sorry, you said they were identified to

Michel Giroux? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. 74? A. Photograph 74 taken by myself on the 19th of January, 1990 I've lifted up the bedspread and underneath the bed on the left inside of the photograph there is a cigarette butt. Underneath the bed itself and behind the wheel leg is a blue shotgun shell wadding. The blue shotgun shell wadding was seized for later examination. MR. DANDYK: 45 please. Thank you.

Q. I'm showing you what was Exhibit 45 from a previous proceeding. Will you take a look and see if you recognize it? A. That is the wadding that I obtained from underneath the bed.


966

Q. And when you indicate wadding, what are you talking about? A. Wadding in a shotgun shell is to separate the pellets from the gunpowder itself, it acts as a spacer in between the pellets and the powder and the wadding is ejected upon being fired. Q. Okay.

MR. DANDYK: If that could then be the next exhibit number, I believe 59? THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Exhibit 59, Your Honour.THE COURT: Thank you.EXHIBIT NO. 59: Shotgun waddingMR. DANDYK:

Q. Now in relation to the house, did you search for any shotgun shells? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. And what was the result of the search? A. There was no shotgun shell casings found that would've been ejected from the shotgun that was used, I did not find any. This is the only evidence of a shotgun being used is the wadding itself which I located underneath the bed. Q. Okay. Finding no shell, does that lead you to any conclusion? A. The persons who were there or person picked up the spent shells and took them with them. Q. Okay.

Now you've indicated in photograph 74 as well that to the left under the bed there appears to be a cigarette butt. A. Yes, sir, that's correct. Q. Okay. Was that seized?


966

A. No, sir, I did not seize that cigarette butt. I don't know if the slide depicts it as well as the photograph does, but in my opinion the cigarette butt was crushed, there was on the bottom tip a slight burn mark indicating that another cigarette had been up beside it and it had not been discarded here, it got there by other means. Q. Okay. When you say crushed what do you mean? A. It being put out in an ashtray itself, it had already been crushed out and it had not made any ash or burn mark to the rug upon examining the area around it. Q. 75? A. Again this is another photograph taken on the 19th day of January and again my spotlight is highlighting this portion of the rug in the bottom left-hand corner of the photograph and again the cigarette butt is there, discoloration to the bottom tip of the cigarette, and then in the centre of the photograph just behind the bed leg is a blue wadding. Q. Which we've just filed as an exhibit. A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. THE COURT: I think what you just described was 74,

unless I'm mistaken? MR. DANDYK: This is 75, Your Honour. THE COURT: This is 75. THE WITNESS: It is the same, Your Honour, yes. MR. DANDYK: They're virtually the same shot, Your Honour, with just a little more light in one of them.

THE COURT: Okay, but why isn't it 74?


966

MR. DANDYK: This is 75. 74 we described the cigarette butt and the wadding and the wadding was filed.

THE COURT: Okay, I'm sorry. All right. I didn't get that down. Okay. Fine. Thank you. Sorry. MR. DANDYK: Okay.

Q. This is 75. Is there anything further? A. No, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. No problem. MR. DANDYK: Q. Okay. Moving to 76. A. Yes, sir, photograph 76 taken on the 19th day of January, 1990 and again it's just showing the locations of the blue wadding in behind the bed and the cigarette would be to the left of it, and again at the bottom portion of the left-hand corner of the photograph is my 250-watt light bulb that I was using. Q. Okay. I notice at least beyond the range of the 250-watt bulb it seems to be quite dark on the edges of this photograph. A. Yes, sir, that's correct. The flash did not fire in this photograph. Q. Okay. And I suppose compared to what you recall the room was lit like and the darkness on the edge here, how did they compare? A. They're relatively close. It was a very dark room. My lamp is lighting up the floor area but did not illuminate the rest of the bedroom area. Q. All right. 77? A. 77 taken on the 19th day of January, 1990, this is the same photograph as the previous one, however my


966

flash did fire and showing the location of the blue wadding just behind the leg and then the cigarette butt to the left of it.

Photograph number 78 taken on the 19th day of January, 1990 this is the china cabinet beside the dining room. I detected in two areas small what I believed to be blood splatter. I placed a white piece of cardboard behind it and then a ruler in between them. Q. Okay. 79? A. Photograph number 79 taken on the 19th day of January, 1990 and this is a close-up of the bottom blood splatter. I've circled the blood and then the scale is above it. Q. Okay. 80?

THE COURT: Officer, when you change dates, when you change dates, tell us. The Reporter has to take down every time you say for every picture that it was taken on the 19th of January, 1990 she has to record all that. So when you want to change dates you tell us, otherwise we'll just assume that they were all taken on that day, all right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Photograph number 80 would be the upper or a portion of the blood spatter on the cabinet indicated by the U and the RP there which are "upper" and RP is for my initials on the 19th day of January, 1990.

MR. DANDYK:


966

Q. Just a minute, can you back up? Okay. I think they're ---

A. They're reversed. Q. --- reversed, yes.

A. The slides may be reversed. Q. Maybe my numbers are reversed. In any case, you've described them, we'll leave them that way.

MR. DANDYK: Could I see G? Q. This I believe you have as what number?

A. This is slide number 80 which is showing the --- Q. Okay. And if we can go back to 79. A. This is slide number 79 showing B for the bottom one, so that in the book itself they are mixed up. Q. They're reversed. Okay. Maybe on the record then I'll simply flip them to correspond.

Anybody have any problem? MR. MORRIS: Just to confirm the bottom is first

and the upper is second then? MR. DANDYK: Yes.

Q. What's in the bottom is going to be moved to the top which is 79 then, and that shows in fact, as this photograph shows, virtually no cabinet in the image, just the glass? A. That is correct. Q. And then 80 will be, if you can move on to 80 with another close-up, has a portion of the cabinet to the left; is that correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. All right, they correspond now. Thank you.


966

Okay. We've got a further close-up basically, okay? Now you've moved to 81?

A. Yes, sir, I have. Q. And again it would appear to be again a close-up of two of the blood splatter marks, correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. Now if you can wait there. You obviously took some time to photograph these and to do close-ups of a number of them. Were these ultimately seized? A. No, sir, they were not. Q. And why not? A. I forgot. Q. Okay. Move on. 82? A. Yes, sir, photograph 82 would've been taken on the 20th day of January, 1990 and the slides that follow will have probably that date. This is in the second bedroom. I removed this coat from the closet, that was hanging in the closet, and from the right-hand pocket I obtained this baggie and folded pieces of paper with a white powdery substance inside the folded pieces of paper. Q. Okay. You indicated earlier in testimony what you found to be drugs. Is this what you're talking about? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. And when you say folded pieces of a paper, what kind of paper was it? A. The pieces of paper were magazine covers, they were glossy in nature, and they were cut up into small sections and then folded with a white powder inside. Q. Okay. You've noted it was glossy as opposed to I suppose sort of flat or?


966

A. That is correct, it was not a newspaper where it was very porous, it is a magazine type of paper with a glossy finish to it. Q. All right. And were you able to ascertain the size or the quantity of white substance in each of those small containers of magazine? A. The packages were numbered as to an indication of one-half G in my indications of thinking it was referring to half a gram of white powder believed to be cocaine. Q. Okay. 83? A. Again photograph number 83 is just a close- up of the previous photograph and the slide doesn't depict it very well but on one piece of paper in the photograph, in the centre of the photograph you can see in the photograph that there is a 1 and a 2 on that piece of paper. Q. Meaning for what for you? A. A half a gram. Q. Okay. I think you indicated on the previous photograph this is the 20th of January? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Okay. 89? I'm sorry, 84. A. Photograph 84, upon searching the residence further this is the cupboard door just above the dryer, and as we opened the cupboard door there's a piece of paper that is taped to the cupboard door and this piece of paper was seized and it did have names and numbers on it. Q. 47. I'm showing you what was 47 in a previous proceeding. If you can tell us if you recognize that. A. This is a piece of paper that I obtained from the door itself, the cabinet, and it has a number of names on it starting with Roger, and then there's a list of names.


966

Again it has been discoloured by my chemical of ninhydrant and I developed a print on it which matched that of Michel Giroux. Q. Okay. And did you at all -- the size of this compared to the notebook page and so on, were you able to compare the two? A. Yes, sir, they are similar in size and the same type of paper and ringlets that would come from the bedroom drawer of the master bedroom. Q. Okay.

MR. DANDYK: If that could be the next exhibit, I believe 60? THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Exhibit number 60, Your

Honour. EXHIBIT NO. 60: One page from notebookMR. DANDYK: And that may be a convenient place. THE COURT: That's it for today? All right. Thank you very much, members of the jury. 10:00 o'clock, not 9:00. We'll be finished at 1:00, okay?

--- Whereupon the jury retired at 4:30 p.m. * * * * * * * *


966

--- In the absence of the juryMS. MULLIGAN: Your Honour, before you leave.MR. McKECHNIE: I want to speak to one matter. THE COURT: Yes, certainly. MR. McKECHNIE: Just the scheduling of the application that I brought with respect to the openings, we now have the addresses. I'm just wondering when Your Honour wants to hear that.THE COURT: Well, that's if counsel have an idea of how long it would take. MR. DANDYK: Well I'm wondering, maybe we can discuss it together. Ms. Bair isn't here either. I think the doctor is lined up. I would think we're going to complete the doctor, so we're into next week in any case. Maybe we can discuss it together and then we can raise it with the Court and maybe we can actually reach an understanding before we trouble the Court. THE COURT: Well who knows. Anyway there's probably some merit in that because we only have tomorrow and I guess the doctor feels committed with his timetable I guess to tomorrow because you're going to interrupt this witness as I understand it, aren't you, and start with the doctor tomorrow? MS. MULLIGAN: That's correct.THE COURT: So, anyway, perhaps on Monday you can let me know how long you think it might be and whatever and I could always ask you what you're doing some evening. I should make note that the Court Reporter gulped. Okay. So that's


968

what we'll do, we'll talk about it and you'll let me know. Thank you.MS. MULLIGAN: Thank you.MR. DANDYK: Thank you, Your Honour.

--- Whereupon, at 4:35 o'clock p.m. court was adjourned to reconvene at 10:00 o'clock a.m., Friday, October 16th, 1998

* * * * * * * *

Certified correct to thebest of my skill and ability

________________________________Gloria D. Neville, C.S.R.Chartered Shorthand ReporterOntario Court (General Division)


968

Documents

kangaroojustice.org€¦ · Web viewUpon commencing at 10:00 a.m.--- Accused present--- In the absence of the jury. MR. DANDYK: I became aware Ms. Mulligan approached, I believe,