kangaroojustice.org€¦ · web view- upon commencing at 10:05 a.m. accused present. the...

FRIDAY, JANUARY 14th, 2000

--- Upon commencing at 10:05 a.m. --- Accused present

THE REGISTRAR: Are counsel satisfied that all mem-bers of the jury are present?MS. BAIR: Yes. Thanks.MR. MORRIS: Yes. Thank you. MS. MULLIGAN: Yes. Thank you.THE COURT: Ms. Bair.

MS. BAIR: Thank you, Your Honour. We stopped in the middle of John Chapman yes-terday and I've gone sort of back and I'm going to try and compact Mr. Chapman a little bit here.

Mr. Chapman is another witness who was able to deliver context regarding the drug world and specific firsthand insight into the activities of Richard Mallory and Robert Stewart. He shed light on the drug organization as a whole and also he gives you information about Mr. Stew- art's relationships with people like Mike Vanasse and Richard Mallory. On all of those points John Chapman is quite an authority. He knew Stewart for years, he'd been involved in drug running for Stewart himself as we covered yesterday, they've been friends, and he was friends with Mr. Mallory. So other than the business rela-tionship they also have friend- ships. Therefore, when John Chapman tells you about these men and this organization you're

ADDRESS TO THE JURY(Bair)

23053

hearing from someone who knows of what he speaks. In addition, we have those wiretap intercepted conversations which powerfully powerfully corroborate the information that John Chapman provided and they also drew all of us into that world. We were exposed to the raw edge of the language of the conversations and the emotion that was conveyed.

What does John Chapman tell us? He saw guns. The organization was in a cash crunch in 1989. Mr. Stewart was growing increasingly desperate in 1989 and '90. Mr. Mallory was out collecting little debts down to $500. Stewart was not a person who would kill you with kindness in order to get what he wanted from you. This organization did use fear to control. The taped conversations, for example, in early 1989 we have Mr. Stewart:

I'll tell you what to do. No, listen, you -- you -- you -- you -- you -- you drop your car right now, you come down and see me right now.

Before I move on, that one is important as well. I would ask you to note the manner of speaking and compare that to the "That's why I -- I -- I had to execute a quarter-gram dealer". It's a manner of speaking that is consistent with Mr. Stewart and will help you identify him on the wire.

Mr. Stewart says: You're coming down here to see me right now and we're gonna straighten out this


23053

mess right now, that's the most important thing in your life right now.

Clearly, clearly it's a threatening manner and it's a threatening approach taken by Mr. Stew- art. This organization, Randy Wara tells you, doesn't use fear. You can discount that.

On July the 23rd Stewart wanted Chapman to go to work in Toronto where there was a big pile of money owed. When Mr. Chapman balked at that, he said he couldn't afford to go, Stewart told Chapman that he, Stewart that is, would give Chapman a "good alternative to not stay in town." Later in that exchange Mr. Stewart became increasingly menacing and he told John Chapman "You haven't seen my bad side, have you?" Chapman testified that that talk by Mr. Stewart, that manner of speaking to him was not a reflection of the way he usually dealt with John Chapman, this was clearly a departure, and my submission to you is that it's clear that Mr. Stewart has a mounting problem through the summer of 1989, he's becoming increasingly desperate, increasingly aggressive, increasingly threatening and violence is moving into the organization. Chapman is a window into this organization in that time period.

He went with Rick Mallory to Toronto a few times to try and retrieve the $20,000. of the Ivan Integra rip. He tells us that Mallory's drug addiction during this period was affecting Mallory's judgment and ultimately his ability


23053

as a collector. That was confirmed by Mr. Mallory himself and of course by vast amounts of other evidence.

Mr. John Chapman testified that the last trip to

Toronto was stopped short when the Mercedes was hit

by a tractor-trailer, but you should note that Mr.

Vanasse and Mr. Stewart were coming with him this

time. It appeared that Vanasse was going to be the

primary collector on that trip to Toronto. Stewart

had, at an earlier time, told John Chapman that

Vanasse "will show Rick how to do it" and that

Vanasse thought that Mallory was getting too soft.

Vanasse admitted his willingness on the wires to do

Mallory's job, we've covered that. He said he would

only get paid for results. Clear- ly Mr. Vanasse

was interested in helping to ensure that Mr.

Stewart got his debts collected which is inter-

esting, of course, in that it shows the upper

echelons getting involved in collecting on their

debts if the money is sufficient, if your debt is

sufficiently high to the people are concerned it

moves up the food chain, doesn't it? And here we

have the upper echelons getting directly involved

on a collection.

Mr. Chapman testified that he owed Stewart money during this time and he testified that the pressure that was put on him to pay was intense. He said his life was threatened, he said "my mother's, my kids, my whole family."


23053

Remember the map to John Chapman's mother's house found in the Cadillac and Chapman didn't draw it, that's what he told you. Worse, that he might have but it would've been at the request of Mr. Stewart. About his mother John Chapman testified that Michel Vanasse originally suggested that they kill Chapman's mother so that he could inherit her property and sell it and pay them the money that he owed them. Stew- art brought that fact up several times to John Chapman, how his mother could be killed so that his debts would be paid. Remember as well how Lynn Chapman's erratic behaviour, that's John's wife, and her psychiatric problems that brought the OPP to the Chapman household on more than one occasion and how she'd actually gone to the OPP station and tried to explain to them that John was running drugs from Toronto. Apparently she wasn't believed by the OPP on that occasion. Remember that John Chapman explained that he got a call from Rob Stewart saying that Chapman had better deal with it "or we're gonna have to dump her." Chapman could hear Vanasse, he said, in the background yelling "Tell him to take care of it." Chapman took that seriously.

He tells you about the enormity of the problem that

this organization was facing and how much fear they

imposed on the people below them, how significant

the people below them thought their problems were

when these guys said to pay. Chapman was able to

delay his debt repayment on


23053

the expectation that his farm would be sold but eventually the bank got the farm. Remember the beating with the pipe that John Chapman testified about. Stewart, Hately and Michel Vanasse administered that beating. Remember that John Hately was the ex-Satan's Choice gang member who'd been expelled for misbehaviour from Satan's Choice, he replaced Mallory after Mallory's motorcycle accident in June of '90. Mr. Chapman's words:

As I walked through the door I was greeted with a pipe behind the ear, something in the neighbourhood of an inch and a half in diameter lead pipe wrapped in gray duct tape. I went immediately to the ground. I saw stars. At that point I did not know who else was in the room and everyone was kicking me. There was quite a flurry of blows, a lot of beating with the pipe, and the idea of the tape around the pipe is that you bruise from the inside out rather than show a bruise.

There was a brief reprieve when John Chapman con-vinced Robert Stewart and Vanasse and Hately to let him call his lawyer because he could arrange something and he used Stewart's cell phone, but before the call was over - back to Mr. Chapman's words -

Hately blind-sided me, broke the phone and the beating started again. A gun was stuck to the side of my head. There was a lot of discussion above me, a lot of, I guess, discussion between the three of them, what they were going to do with me. One of the comments was something to the nature of "Let's dump him like the two in Rockland" or "the couple in Rockland" but I can't be exactly sure of the exact phrasing of what


23053

was said.

The beating subsided. How bad was it? Well, as Chapman explained:

I got up, I was in pretty rough shape, my clothes were ripped during the beating, my bowels had let go.

Vanasse and Hately exited and when Stewart left he gave Chapman an extra swipe in the head and as he was going out the door he said "Fuck you, I don't care about the money, I don't give a fuck if you live or die. Dump him if you have to. That was the last time I saw Rob Stewart until just yesterday" said Mr. Chapman.

In cross-examination it was suggested that this language that was attributed to Rob Stewart is ambiguous somehow given that it was suggested in cross-examination that "dump" could mean two things, it could mean to kill or it could mean to take a really good beating. Well, given that Mr. Stewart made that statement to John Hately "You could dump him if you want to" at the point where Chapman has just received a beating, it's already over, it suggests that Mr. Stewart could be refer-ring to that other aspect of dumping, doesn't it? Also during this incident you should maybe bear in mind that "dumping" had already been used in the context of the Rockland couple where it clearly meant kill. Ultimately, I submit to you, there's no ambiguity at all regarding what Mr. Stewart meant by that, and it's equally clear that these murders were being used by this organiza-


23053

tion as an example, just exactly as Denis Gau-

dreault was warned ahead of time that they were

looking to set before January the 16th. Following the beating Hately then drove John Chapman to his lawyer's office and Mr. Hately had a gun, contrary to the evidence that the defence led. Chapman, with the cooperation of his lawyer, fooled Hately into thinking that the money was going to be available at 4:00 o'clock, that was 10:00 or 11:00 in the morning. Chapman got away on another ruse later that morning and he explained what he did:

I got in my car, I went home and I got my gun and I packed my bags and I moved away.

He stayed away. He said:l called my wife at work, I told her to pull the kids out of school as soon as she could and it was the end of school season luckily. She packed up the kids and met me where I was. I called my mother. My mother packed up and I left town and my whole family left town.

About his business he said: I stopped at the Top Stop, I gave my mechanic orders to close the place up, pack it all up, we're closed. I wasn't hanging around town. There was no way I was hanging around town another minute in Ottawa because I knew that my number was up.

It seems Mr. Chapman was of the view that it had gotten to the point where either he'd pay up or he'd die, and he knew he couldn't pay.

Ms. Mulligan suggested that Mr. Chapman traded in on an assault charge and therefore he's


23053

lying about everything that he testified here because he got that benefit. Recall how Mr. Chapman actually came to be involved. It was years after he left Ottawa that he learned the police were trying to find him through his mother. Ultimately he turned himself in. At that time he had an old out-standing warrant for a domestic assault charge and he was concerned that turning himself in to the police would mean that he'd have to deal with that assault charge and he might, therefore, find himself in the same prison where these people were, that gave him real concerns, so he tried to arrange it so that he wouldn't have to go to jail on an assault charge. Does that sound unreasonable or does it make perfect sense in the circumstances knowing, as you know, what he had been through? Ultimately the Crown did not seek a jail term when John Chapman pled guilty. The judge who sentenced him, who had the final decision, imposed a one year period of proba- tion, the judge didn't impose a fine. Chapman, however, got no special favours from the Crown on his guilty plea. He got no help from anyone with his outstanding fines or his suspended driver's licence afterwards. We have to consider as well how long ago that was from when he testified before you. Years passed, years passed between the time that his assault charge was dealt with and the time that he appeared before you. That was so so very over with,


23053

that, in my submission, it's preposterous to suggest that he would come here and lie to you to fulfil his part of a bargain that had been over for him and over for the courts for years, five years. It's so long ago and so very very over it really has no present bearing on anything John Chapman did.

When he was asked if he felt obligated to the OPP to come here and testify it became clear that it was someone else who'd had a much more profound influence on John Chapman and who had guided him to take the oath in the courtroom and testify. He said "I do feel obligated" and he explained. He said:

Well, my mother and I were very close. My mother was the one that encouraged me to come forward. She always supported me even when I was on the wrong end of the law and I was always getting in some shit when I was young. Even as I got older I still got in trouble but my mother supported me and she died a few years back and one of the last things that she said on her death bed was "Don't back out." I could've backed out of this thing a long time ago.

John Chapman clearly did not back out nor has he

backed down from the risks that are clearly associ-

ated with being a witness in this milieu. He gave

powerful, truthful information on which, I submit,

you can comfortably rely.The next witness I'd like to speak to you about is John Smallwood. Handsome man John Smallwood. Recall that he was a career criminal and fraud artist and he came before you with a recording


23053

of Robert Stewart admitting that he executed a quarter-gram dealer. Without that recording John Smallwood's evidence might've been much more prob-lematic and difficult for you, again because of what he was, but the recording and the circum-stances of how it came to be make it clear that this was a confession and it was a confession accompanied by an explanation that you can rely on.

The circumstances of Robert Stewart and John Smallwood's initial contact surrounded computers as you'll recall. Smallwood has some fairly significant proficiency with computers and Robert Stewart wanted to exploit that. They had common interests which ultimately led to the sharing of information. They started talking about computers and they moved on to other things, including Robert Stewart's business. Stewart told Mr. Smallwood that his business was still ongoing. He said he had enormous resources. He said many other things regular in, what I would submit, run-of-the-mill bravado sorts of discussions. He also complained about his trial and Mr. Smallwood told you that that's also a common place in prison. But he also spoke to Mr., -- that is Mr. Stewart spoke to Smallwood about various activities that he'd been involved in, including the murders of a man and his pregnant wife, and when Mr. Small- wood got that information he called the only Canadian police officer he knew, that was Staff


23053

Sergeant Sanford, and Sanford put him in touch with the investigators in this case and it was the very next day after Smallwood spoke to Sanford that Mr. Smallwood was taken out of the jail and had his first interview with Detectives Lamarche and Riddell and that first interview was tape recorded. He told them what he'd been told and he did ask for assistance. He said he had wanted to better his position. Detective Lamarche, however, told him that that was not possible. She explained that the police could help him as far as security was concerned, if that became necessary they could move him to another jail, but beyond that at the very most that could be provided would be a letter chronicling his involvement if he became involved. Understand that that is a letter that is a historical recounting, that's what he was offered, that's all he's ever been offered, not an advocate on his behalf, no one said they would advocate on his behalf. It's a historical accounting. After that was made clear and after Mr. Smallwood understood that nothing was going to be done for him, Detective Lamarche asked him would he wear a wire and virtually before the words were out of her mouth, before the words of the request were out of her mouth John Smallwood said yes, he would wear a wire. He explained to you his motivations for coming forward and I'm going to read from his transcript:


23053

Q. Okay. Having received information from Mr. Stewart with respect to these things did you end up taking any steps, sir?

A. Eventually, yes.

Q. And what caused you to take steps?

A. The statement that a pregnant woman was involved in a murder or a pregnant woman had been murdered.

Q. When did you learn that, sir, in rela-tion to your first step?

A. I'd say about seven or eight days before I actually made the call.

Q. Okay. What were you considering during those seven or eight days, sir, that you didn't make the call right away?

A. Sometimes whenever you can't be sure that somebody is being straight with you and sometimes you're fighting over what's the right thing to do. Anything else I would've overlooked, had it been a man or two men or a robbery, anything like that, but a pregnant woman is an entirely different matter.

Q. Was there any motivation along the line of self-interest, sir, that eventually caused you to take a step?

A. That was entirely secondary. I had made the statement at the very beginning that if I could help myself I would but not being able to help myself wouldn't stop me.

The defence invite you, of course, to disbelieve that and to question his motivations. I


23053

would submit that whatever his motives ultimately,

as I have submitted to you before, motives are

important, they're critical, investigate them but

it's the information that's most important, and in

this context I would suggest that if Mr. Smallwood

found himself in a position where he was

contemplating going to the police to trade his

information it suggests that he had information to

trade, does it not? Most importantly about John

Smallwood in

assessing his credit is a recognition of the fact that he knew the prison code. The prison code is a mirror image of the street code with one critical difference which is that inside prison literally there's a captive audience, when it's time to administer street justice you're there and available to anyone stronger than you, anyone who's been bold enough to violate the code finds himself in jeopardy if discovered. So there's John Smallwood. He met a man in jail that he'd never met or heard of before and he was told a story by that person, a story about events that John Smallwood previously had no knowledge about. What Robert Stew- art told Smallwood in essence was that Stewart had executed a quarter-gram dealer to maintain his position and his standing on the street, "They were not as big as they thought they were. The silly bastard ripped off the wrong guy. It was not personal, just business." For Robert Stewart it was business, it was a matter


23053

of principle that permitted him to kill two people in their own home, one of them was a pregnant woman and that just didn't sit well for John Smallwood. He had six years, he said, in the neighbourhood of six years of experience in the American prison system. He told you he had some bad habits to break, as he put it. You heard Mr. Smallwood admit to all his misdeeds and he may not have been a particularly likable fellow. This is certainly not a popularity contest. It's not written that you can only accept the evidence of someone that you would invite home for dinner or let your children associate with. John Smallwood's experience in that world and his understanding of the street code and the prison code are relevant to his credibility because he appreciated the fact that in order for his information ever to get before you he had to risk his life. He agreed to wear a wire into a maximum security prison wing with 12 other inmates, all who had instant access to street justice and to him. He had to risk his very life just to prove that he was telling the truth about Mr. Stewart's confessions. He knew the risks and he willingly assumed them, all that for a letter, a letter, a historical accounting of what he did. He received no benefit other than a letter. Oh yes, and a computer, he had access to a computer. Well, Mr. Stewart has had a computer on his lap throughout the trial. Is that a benefit for


23053

which Mr. Smallwood risked his life?

He went into this jail on his own wearing an unmonitored wire. If anyone had discovered that wire, no one, no police officer, no guard, was listening in. He was aware he was risking his own execution to record the truth about Manon Bourdeau's execution. When you look at what he did in its proper context doesn't it make sense that he risked his personal safety because the murder of a pregnant woman troubled him just the way he said it did? Could it possibly have been the letter, as the defence suggests, that motivated this particular action and to take on this particular risk? Did he risk his life for a letter that his own lawyer told him was not worth the paper it was written on? That letter, he told you, was meaningless to him and I submit it should be meaningless to you. He wore the wire to make his evidence easier for you. He had already of course given his information, the fact of the confession and what it surrounded, to the police, before he ever agreed to wear the wire before he was asked and he didn't hesitate. Is that what someone does, that is agree to wear a wire into a prison, is that what someone does who has just lied about receiving a confession? Do they agree to wear a wire? Do they agree as a fabricator to provide the police with the means of contradicting him? I would submit that a fabricator would refuse. John Smallwood didn't. His evidence and the


23053

body pack interception provide, therefore, another reliable piece of this puzzle, they add strength and value to the testimony of the other witnesses who implicate Robert Stewart and Richard Mallory, and Smallwood gives the context for these murders in a manner that almost nobody else could because of his absolute independence. He didn't know Robert Stew- art or Richard Mallory or Richard Trudel or James Sauvé or Denis Gaudreault or anyone else, but he stepped forward. He's not even from this country and he's not staying in this country but he stepped forward. All he had to worry about, and I suppose that's sarcastic when I say "All he had to worry about", what he had to worry about was the immedi-ate prospect of death the day he wore the wire and he decided it was worth it. He was told he would get nothing, he got nothing, and he did it anyway. Surely that must mean something.

You heard from Superintendent Davidson on the point of the risks involved in this for John Smallwood. I submit you can infer that he was not being paranoid, that is Smallwood was not being paranoid, or self-aggrandizing when he said that he knew he could be killed. From a policing perspective, as Superintendent David- son said, there was an extreme risk of death involved in wearing a wire into a detention centre, an extreme risk of death for violation of the prison code. Remember we heard from


23053

Glenn Miller about that sort of thing too. Superintendent Davidson said it was so risky that it had never been done in this region before, to his knowledge, and he wasn't aware that it had been done in Canada. He said unless he could be assured of a person's safety he wouldn't wire anyone and send them into a detention centre.

Again, John Smallwood without a second's hesi-tation, after being told he was going to get no benefit, agreed. He got legal advice and after the legal advice that the letter would be of no benefit, he agreed. He was ordered deported from Canada and after the deportation order was a fait accompli, it was done, he was ordered out, he agreed. The police reviewed with him over and over again that he could withdraw his consent and he agreed. After the deportation order was issued that's when the wire was installed and he went back to the Regional Detention Centre fully prepared to just listen. You might bear in mind that Mr. Smallwood was instructed that Canadian law prevented him from asking questions, from leading the conversation, from making any inquiries. He could only listen. He understood that. He understood that and I submit you should understand that too when you consider the content of the wire. He couldn't ask questions.

He wore that wire, then, on the 12th of May. It was nine days earlier that he'd had his first


23053

interview with the police, the one that I told you was tape recorded with Heather Lamarche and Rick Riddell, and he told Lamarche and Riddell already on that day what Robert Stewart had already told him before that day as to Robert Stewart's reasons to killing this couple and I'm going to read extracts of his testimony where that taped recorded interview was read back to Mr. Smallwood in court and this is what he told to Lamarche and Riddell on the 3rd of May as to what Mr. Stewart told him:

It was just a couple of people who were thinking a little bit too big for what they were, what they were really about, and he said "They just didn't realize how big that me and my people are" and he says "They got in the way" and he didn't clarify too much about that. He's told me straight up that, you know, he -- you know, he did basically do it and he believed he's going to get away with it and walk out of here and possibly file suit for whatever he can file suit for whenever he gets out. The only thing that he said about the guy, he didn't mention anybody's names specifically like I said, but he said something about the silly bastard ripped off the wrong person and he was dealt with, and then he said that they found -- as far as him being dealt with he said they found him dead and then he rambles on a little bit and then they talked about the pregnant girl and he didn't say anything about why. The only thing that I can remember word for word that he said was a guy and a pregnant girl had got in the way of business, they were -- they weren't as big or they weren't as big and they weren't as bad as they thought they were. He said "Yeah, I had to kill them both. They weren't as big and


23053

they weren't as bad as they thought they were and I had to deal with them." There were some other things said that I can't remember word for word but he said -- he didn't specifically said "I had to kill them both", and then he says -- well, another thing that I can remember word for word is he said "You know like they say in the movies, it wasn't anything personal it was business" and he said "and you have to protect your business."

Rob Stewart's motives for these murders as

articulated to Mr. Smallwood and then through Mr.

Smallwood to you are "They got in the way of

business", "They were not as big as they thought

they were", "It wasn't personal, it was just

business" and "They ripped him off."John Smallwood testified in the Crown case before

Randy Wara was even a twinkle in our eyes and yet

he has these hits motivated by a ripoff "The silly

bastard ripped off the wrong guy." It all falls

into place, doesn't it? They got in the way of

business. Put that into the context of the problems

that were being caused in Montreal. They ripped him

off.

On May the 12th after being ordered deported, as I say, he was wired and returned to the detention centre with his instructions not to dig, not to question. He spoke to Robert Stew- art that night and he came out and turned the device over to the OPP. He had an immediate debriefing with Rick Riddell and he told Rick Riddell before he ever heard that recording that Robert Stewart had said


23053

to him "That's the


23053

reason I had to kill a quarter-gram dealer." Of course the wire reveals that Stewart's precise words were "That's why I had to execute a quarter-gram dealer." So what we see from Mr. Smallwood the first time he has an opportunity to say what he heard before he has an opportunity to hear the tape so that he can't be accused of reconstructing it on the basis of what he's heard after the fact, John Smallwood gives a version to the police without exaggeration and with no over-stating, he doesn't say "execute", he says "kill", and of course there's a critical difference given that execute is first degree and kill can have other connotations, it can be less, it can be some-thing less than first degree murder. Most importantly John Smallwood's unassisted recollection was supported by the recording. Except for that understatement of "execute" down to "kill" the precise conversation that he described was found on that recording.

John Smallwood explained to Detective Riddell that night, as he explained to you here, the context for that conversation that he'd had with Mr. Stewart. He said Stewart had handed him a bunch of newspaper articles like a scrapbook almost and John Smallwood said that he'd been browsing through them. When he came to the one that was this one "Drug dealer wanted to make example of deadbeat" he pointed to a particular paragraph which was on the right


23053

down there. That paragraph was about Denis Gau- dreault and the fact that he once owed Robert Stewart $35,000. It also referred to making an example of someone. It says:

Mr. Gaudreault, who once owed Mr. Stewart almost $35,000., said that he took "making an example of someone" to mean hurting or crippling them.

So John Smallwood is pointing to that paragraph and it was in connection with that article then, as he pointed to that paragraph, that Robert Stewart said "That's why I had to execute a quarter-gram dealer in his house." It's for you to decide what Robert Stewart meant when he said that. For obvious reasons John Smallwood thought that Robert Stewart was saying that he had to kill a 35-thousand-dollar debtor, after all that's what Smallwood was pointing to and that's what he was referring to, but that article also has the headline that I read out "Drug dealer wanted to make example of deadbeat, court told" and it has the subheading "Accused allegedly argued with woman a week before killing."

All three of those avenues lead you to why Robert Stewart had to, in Robert Stewart's view, as an up and coming businessman, he had to execute a quarter-gram dealer in his house because debtors owed him money like the $35,000. that Gaudreault owed, he needed to make an example like the headline says, and he had argued with the woman who threatened to go


23053

to the police which the subheading says. All of those are reasons that he did, in his view, have to execute a quarter-gram dealer and all of those reasons can be derived from the article that John Smallwood says Mr. Stewart was referring to when he said "That's why I had to execute a quarter-gram dealer." You have those conversations as exhibits and you have the transcripts as well and I would ask you to review them. They're very difficult to understand. There are portions, obviously vast portions, which are inaudible but there are portions which are perfectly clear as well. You see Mr. Stewart discussing "The people who died were selling quarter-grams in some bar out in the country", "fuck, I know them", and that was replayed again and again and again, and I think you all heard that. He discusses in Segment 4 his entire line of defence, doesn't he? He says:

It doesn't make any sense to put me in here. Well what the fuck do they want? They want one of the largest in the city or being down to selling quarter-grams, even the narc the narc (inaudible) about me, best thing they got out of him after about a week was they got a dealer out of him. That didn't work, so fuck, these people are not in the same league, that's what the jury has heard for a whole week, nothing about the murder just -- just to show I'm a bad guy. Anyhow they couldn't break us, fuck them.

What's that all about "they couldn't break us, fuck them"? Consider that in conjunction, when


23053

we get to it, with the letter Linda Béland turned over to the police where Robert Stewart says "It looks like our story about a drug rip is looking good." It sounds like a little bit of solidarity here, doesn't it? "They couldn't break us, fuck them", they have a story about a drug rip. It's a fabrication of a defence. It's clear he's talking about the narc here is Glenn Miller, Glenn Miller who was testifying at the time.

The Segment 5 at the beginning of it starts with "What's this, a scrapbook?" and that, of course, is when Mr. Smallwood got the newspapers handed to him, and then later on we hear that portion that John Andrews couldn't hear "cold-blooded that case, I don't know why he ever dumped that one" and it's repeated "cold- blooded that case I don't know why you ever dumped that one. I didn't dump her, you fucker", "Oh sorry", "Her heart is still beating, that's why -- that's why I had to execute a quarter-gram dealer in his house." "Then why did you whack the guy?" "Because uh" and then somebody says "Wavy, wavy". "Wouldn't that be extra?", "(inaudible)" and then Smallwood:

Man oh man oh man, yeah that's right 1400 kilos of cocaine and you had to execute a quarter-gram dealer, just good business.

STEWART: How true.

I'll talk a bit more about that conversation in a moment but it's curious, isn't it? "That's


23053

why I had to execute a quarter-gram dealer in his house" in reference to that newspaper article. "Then why did you whack the guy?" and the newspaper article explains why he killed the woman. "Why did you whack the guy?" "Because uh". Then the next question "Wouldn't that be extra?" My submission to you is that means wouldn't that cost you extra to have two people killed.

John Smallwood listened to the recording over and over again and over again. He looped it on the computer as he did for you here and he assisted in preparing the transcript that you have as an exhibit from the prosecution. He said that -- in fact he said that he had both of the transcripts and reviewed them and he said that he used them as aids but that seven out of 10 times he made corrections. He was there, he made the changes. He didn't accept anyone's script presented to him, unlike John Andrews did.

What else is in the intercepts? Just review them yourselves and see what you take out of them. Most important of all, in my submission, is what came from the horse's mouth, what came directly from Mr. Stewart "That's why I had to execute a quarter-gram dealer in his house" and that's why we are here.THE COURT: Should we stop now?MS. BAIR: Okay.

THE COURT: Try and hold it to 10 minutes,


23053

everybody.

--- Whereupon the jury retired at 10:45 a.m.


23053

--- In the absence of the juryTHE COURT: Perhaps I should tell counsel and the

accused as well, of course, that Mr. Hum of The

Citizen has asked me if he may photograph some of

the exhibits for a post-decision story for the

newspaper and I said that I thought in general

terms I didn't see how we could object but I would

bring it up with counsel and if counsel have

anything in particular they wanted to speak to me

about I would listen the to submissions, but my

overall ruling was I thought that if they wanted to

take pictures of something that was part of the

public record and filed as an exhibit I could see

no objection to it in general.

MS. BAIR: I think the Crown's position is that we would generally agree, Your Honour, the only limitation being if there's anything in there that impacts on security or confidentiality and I can't think of anything that has been filed that does, but if it came to that I'd be curious to know what he wanted to photograph.THE COURT: Well the way we're proceeding for the moment is I've said that the Registrar would give him the list of the exhibits and he would peruse the list first and then presumably pick things out that interest him and we'd go from there. So I'll advise him when I know. MS. MULLIGAN: My position is anything that's part of the public record the public has access to, I can't see how we can stop him.THE COURT: Yes.

(In the absence of the jury)

23055

MS. BAIR: I agree with that except to the extent that there are some publication bans on various people's evidence and that's all I'm concerned about.THE COURT: Yes. Okay.


23055

--- Upon resuming at 11:00 a.m.

--- Accused present

THE COURT: Ms. Bair.

MS. BAIR: Thank you.One of the most interesting things from the Crown's perspective, one of the best things that came out of the evidence of John Smallwood and the fact of his cooperation was John Andrews. John Andrews was called by the defence. He arrived here with his job description clearly emblazoned on his mind, he knew what he was here for and that was to follow a script. His job was to tell you they didn't say what they clearly said and they didn't mean what they clearly meant. He came to convince you that black is white and white is black, to obscure the language in that recording that you could hear, the recording that John Smallwood facilitated. He came here to - going back to my octopus analogy - release ink into the waters because they were clearing, weren't they?, and he was trying to pro-vide a place for the accused to disappear back into the darkness. Andrews adopted the transcript that was provided to him holus-bolus with virtually no changes whatsoever. Contrast that with Mr. Smallwood who says that he changed seven out of 10 things that he was presented with and he had both transcripts. Mr. Andrews told you that he had not been told what to say, he had not been told what he should hear but his behaviour


23080

made it clear that he had an agenda, in my sub-

mission. When he was being asked to verify por-

tions of the transcript as it was being played, and

remember it was divided into segments, two times he

identified the transcript of the wrong segment as

being applicable to the segment that was played,

two times he said "Yeah, that's right, that's

correct" and it wasn't correct, he had the numbers

transposed. He knew what his job was, though. His

job was to say "Yeah, that's right, the

transcript's right" so that's what he said whether

he was listening to what the transcript reflected

or not. Segment number 6, the one that's most

important, was looped over and over again in court

and at the end of it it was clear, and I submit it

was clear, that John Andrews must've been the only

one in the courtroom who couldn't hear that it said

"That's why I had to execute a quarter-gram dealer

in his house." That sentence in its entirety that

was covered with Mr. Smallwood is an addition and

an explanation based on the newspaper article that

Smallwood was holding. That's why John Andrews

didn't hear it, couldn't hear it and wouldn't hear

it.

John Andrews stayed solid on his take that "cold-blooded" actually was "with all the fraud in ..." Remember he gave Mr. Cooper a hard time for saying "tardy", "we don't talk like that inside." Well, "with all the fraud in ...", it sounds like a


23080

tea party too, doesn't it? It was


23080

"cold-blooded", we heard it over and over and over again. Mr. Andrews was under oath and he flagrantly violated it when he said it was actually "with all the fraud in that case." He flatly refused to say that he heard what was clearly there. It was a flagrant violation of his oath and nothing less, in my submission to you. Those words were spoken by Mr. Andrews "cold-blooded that case", it was his voice he identified although he says it was "with all the fraud ...", he does say it was him who was doing the speaking. The words were spoken by him, they were recorded by Mr. Smallwood and they were played back in this courtroom and the conversation in its context was clearly refer- able to the Cumberland murders, that's what they were talking about, and even Andrews admitted that much. If ever "cold-blooded" was an apt description it certainly is for what happened to Manon Bourdeau and Michel Giroux. No matter how many times those segments were looped Andrews just wouldn't admit that he could hear what was there, he stayed with "all the fraud in that case". In my submission he demon-strated there his bias and his purpose.

He tried to tell you that it was all joking sarcasm

and camaraderie on the range that we hear on that

interception. On his evidence, I take it, and I

submit to you, his evidence was intended to make

you believe that murder of a pregnant woman was a

matter of general hilarity


23080

on Range 2B, it was a laughing matter, it was some-thing that they joked about. If you listen to that again you will miss the jocular tone that surrounds that part of the conversation and I submit you'll miss it because it's not there. It was no joke.

"Then why did you whack the guy?" was a question in

context as well, I've touched on this already. The

article explained the woman, he wanted to know why

the man had to go. It's at that point that John

Andrews says in his testimony that Mr. Stewart gave

him a weird look right after he said "Then why did

you whack the guy?" Well I guess he did. I guess he

gave him a weird look. Robert Stewart must've been

incredulous. That look meant 'What do you mean why?

Is it not perfectly obvious why? They're in their

home. I killed one. There's a witness. What kind

of a stupid question is that?' That must've been

what that look meant - how stupid are you? John

Andrews can't explain this away as a joke because

it wasn't a joke. He was asking a serious question

and that much is plain in the recording.

Camaraderie is the other option that Mr. Andrews proffered, and I would submit indeed it was a brand of camaraderie I suppose. The camaraderie that comes with knowing that you can speak unguardedly to the person across from you because that person is so solid that it doesn't matter what you tell him, he will never


23080

break the code. John Andrews was that solid. He demonstrated that when he came to testify before you. Andrews was the guy from Range 2B to put up here, he was under oath and he took the Evidence Act protection, refused to answer questions in regard to his co-accused and his friend. Do you remember that? He was perfectly prepared to answer questions about John Small- wood, though, that man was on the range with him and it didn't seem to cause him any moral consternation to discuss Mr. Smallwood. Is there a reason? Well clearly there's a reason why he would take a different approach into those people. You know what the reason is. John Smallwood wore a wire. John Smallwood violated the camaraderie. John Smallwood violated the code, it's almost a sacred rule, if we know anything we know that by now "thou shalt not rat" and John Smallwood did and John Andrews came here to destroy a rat. As soon as the questioning reverted to anybody but John Small- wood, though, he, Mr. Andrews that is, reverted to what he always was. He wouldn't even admit in cross-examination, there were some questions about his ex-girlfriend or his ex-wife and whether she had been a bank robber and he wouldn't even admit what she had admitted to him. There was an exchange which I'll read to you, a brief one:

Q. You won't even give information against your ex-wife, will you, sir? You're solid on this.


23080

A. Not unless I'm sure about it.

Q. You won't answer questions about conversations where your ex-wife admits stuff to you.

A. I don't feel I should answer -- have to answer questions that are not pertaining to this case actually.

Q. That's how solid a career criminal you are, you won't even rat on your ex-wife. That's solid, right?

He says "If you say so." That's almost a laugh- able conversation but for the fact that he's under oath and he is deciding what he should or should not have to answer and he is deciding what he will or will not answer, and he won't answer anything except about John Smallwood or if it follows that script that he came prepared with. In chief he was asked by Ms. Mulligan:

Q. As far as your life of crime, sir, as you sit here today are you trying to give the jury the impression that you've changed your life at all?

And his answer was: A. I'm in the process of trying to.

I guess one can query whether that means trying to give you the impression he's changed his life or trying to change his life.

He went directly from there in chief where I submit he was trying to tell you that he was changing his life, he went from there in chief right back to what he always was, a solid career criminal prepared to lie under oath if


23080

that's what was necessary to discredit the rat. He showed no respect for the oath whatsoever. It would seem in fact that he didn't even understand the concept of the whole truth. You might recall that in regard to a robbery at the Britannia Bait Shop which Mr. Andrews committed, in chief he answered Ms. Mulligan's questions about it and he described the incident this way:

Q. All right. That robbery, sir, was that a bank?

A. No it wasn't.

Q. Okay. Can you tell me what that situ- -ation involved?

Here's his answer: A. Well it was someone's home actually and

I was at somebody's house and an argument ensued. He pulled a gun on me, I took the gun away from him. We got into a fight. I took the gun. I left him there and I took some money from his house, a quantity of drugs and I left.

Q. And for that you received six months?

A. That's right.

And then in cross-examination he was asked whether that was the whole truth and his answer was "I didn't go into detail, no."

Under cross-examination we learned from Mr. Andrews what that was really all about. He and an accom-plice went to someone's home at the back of the bait shop, fully armed, with the intention of putting a drug dealer out of


23080

business. They had a well-thought out plan to accomplish that goal. They had to breach the security system, they had to come back two times to do it. An argument ensued only in as much as the victim fought back. That's the argument. The victim was maced in the face with pepper spray the minute he opened the door and then he was pummelled with a steel club. Andrews told this person that he should kill him. The house was totally ransacked. Andrews admitted it was a drug rip. He admitted they were there specifically to put the guy out of business. It was a rival drug dealer that was upset that this guy was operating on his turf. Mr. Andrews claimed that he didn't know who he was working for that night, he didn't know who was paying him to get this other drug dealer off his turf, but he did say that this was a turf war and he showed you what can happen. It's a dramatic difference, is it not?, between a little argument where I took a gun off of a guy in a house and left?

John Andrews came here in disguise. He had that suit on him, remember there was sort of constant jocular references to his suit, but the fact of the matter is that John Andrews was in disguise. He's a bank robber and maybe he's accustomed to disguises, but he tried to look clean and tidy and moral and objective and hard working before you, but he behaved as a solid criminal loyal to the code and following the


23080

script. He came to discredit a rat, that ultimately

was a more honourable pursuit than obey- ing his

oath, just like Randy Wara. That's all I have to say about Mr. Andrews, and frankly I'm tempted to deal with Mr. Mallory in a similar fashion but they are similar in that Mr. Mallory got up and lied to you and lied to you and lied to you, and it's tempting to ignore him because of the fact as well that the day is long and he was recent and you probably remember what he had to say but I probably should address Mr. Mallory's evidence. In my submission his evidence regarding the principal issue in this case is virtually useless to you. We know that Manon Bourdeau and Michel Giroux were murdered on January the 16th of 1990 in their house. Mr. Mallory takes the position before you that he was not there. Obviously, then, as a witness he can't provide you with any details about what happened that evening as he says he wasn't there. Therefore in terms of your analysis of what happened on Tuesday, the 16th of January Mr. Mallory is useless to you. He offers you nothing. The important issue which arises from what he says is do you believe him when he says he wasn't there and didn't know what happened, he didn't know it was going to happen? He doesn't know about it. He didn't know about it ahead of time. There are a couple of different ways in which this question can be approached. The proper


23080

approach, of course, is to look at all of the evi-dence before you determine whether or not, in the face of all of the evidence, you think Mr. Richard Mallory was there or whether his evidence raises a reasonable doubt or not. You must engage is a more pointed analysis, in my submission, of Mr. Mallory qua witness. Simply stated: Can you believe him when he says he wasn't there? Do you believe that he's telling the truth on that point? And can you put any faith in his denial?

Well let's start first with the most pressingly obvious question: Does Richard Mallory have a motive to lie about being present? and I covered that a little earlier on. It's tempting to say he has a very powerful motive, that being to avoid conviction on charges but that's sort of backwards reasoning, isn't it? He's presumed innocent. The only way you can say he has a motive to lie is if he's guilty and he has a motive then to cover up, but if we assume, assume he's innocent, presume he's innocent as you're obliged to do, then what? Then he has no reason to lie, right? Then Mr. Mallory has every reason to appear before you and be straightforward and honest and forthright and hide nothing, that's what you expect of an innocent man with nothing to hide as he is presumed to be. Is that what you got? Can we look at Richard Mallory as a person whose word we can trust? Is he a person who does not lie


23080

and who feels strongly compelled to tell the truth

under oath? Therefore when he makes his denial here

under oath that carries some weight with you. My

submission to you is it was demonstrated quite

clearly here that he lied under oath at his first

bail hearing, he lied under oath again at his

second bail hearing and he lied under oath here in

this courtroom. The collection of lies that Mr.

Cooper explored and exposed and analyzed over all

those days with Mr. Mallory show that he lied under

oath for a variety of reasons and sometimes for no

reason. He lied to try and gain his bail release

to get out of jail. He lied to try and make himself

not look so bad. He lied at one point so as not to

make an admission to his boss Rob Stewart about the

$ 12,000. he stole from him. He agrees that he had

lied about his hashish use for no reason, that it

was a gratuitous lie, serving no purpose, under

oath. I was going to not give examples, I think

I'll give some examples. Let me read to you a

little bit. Let's deal with some of the errors and

omis- sions and outright lies first. Number one,

his failed "recollection" about the trips to

Toronto with Mr. Chapman. He testified at the bail

hearing he didn't remember those at all, those

trips to Toronto where he got himself into some

trouble with his boss, he spent money and he was

looking for someone. He didn't remember those

trips at all. He said in fact he


23080

had never been to Toronto to collect money, not that he didn't remember but it was a positive statement that he'd never been there, and then we found out in cross-examination not only was there, the Integra trips, but there was also that trip to Toronto that he did for Mr. Vanasse with Mr. Hately where he got the free bike. Remember that? So those are directly contradictory.

Number two, he repeatedly told the judge at the bail hearing that he had no idea that the money he was collecting for Mr. Stewart was for drugs. He told the judge at the bail hearing that he collected two, three or four times tops for Mr. Stewart, that the collections were only over a couple of months and the amounts were 500 to $1,000., all of which were lies. It was actually countless times over years, in excess of five to $10,000., and he knew of course that it was drug money all along. He said that he had never smoked hash outside jail. At his bail hearing he said that he took up hash inside the prison because of the fact that he was incarcerated. He testified here that he had been a hash smoker inside and outside the prison virtually his entire adult life, that's the gratuitous lie, the throwaway lie for no pur-pose whatsoever. At the second bail hearing he denied knowing John Chapman. That admitted lie, of course, reveals that his failed recollection about going to Toronto with Mr. Chapman was in


23080

fact a lie as well, it wasn't a failed recol-

lection, and he lied to you when he minimized it

here as having been forgetfulness at the bail

hearing. That was a lie. He very well knew at the

time of the bail hearing about those trips to

Toronto. That's the first series.

We have that distinction that Mr. McKechnie made between lying and minimization. The minimization as evident throughout Mr. Mallory's testimony, Mr. McKechnie invited you as his alternative submission to accept Mr. Mallory's statement to Michael Winn as being the truth about what happened. To do that would legiti- mize Mr. Mallory's minimization of these first degree murders to manslaughter. I'm asking you to reject that invitation. Mr. Mallory was doing the same thing with Michael Winn that he did in his bail hearings and in the witness stand here, he was telling less than the whole truth. Mr. Mallory was not the slightest bit apologetic about his perjuries. He defended his perjuries, he had good reason, he wanted to get out, "five years waiting for trial while others come and go is just too long" Mr. Mallory told you. It justified per-jury.

Q. There's no reason to lie here, is there, sir?

A. No, not that I can see. No.

Q. The reason, the real good reason to lie was to get out because you'd been in custody for five years.


23080

A. Yes, I'm in jail. When you're sitting in jail five years it's a long time waiting for anything to happen.

More time has passed. It's a greater reason now? Would it justify Mr. Mallory committing perjury now? It certainly would. Lying under oath after all for Mr. Mallory is not particularly difficult.

Mr. Mallory also tended to do what Mr. Cooper referred to as turfing the blame as many times as he could, he wasn't keen to take personal responsibility for anything. I think that was demonstrated in the cross-examination. His testi-mony at the bail hearings was full of minimizations, but in addition to those there are at least four occasions where we clearly saw Mr. Mallory pushing the blame away from himself and turfing it to someone else in most cases, and I'll just touch on four of them. He turfs the blame for his failures to collect with Ivan Integra on those trips, that was Mr. Chapman's fault, he put the blame to Mr. Chap- man in the wires when he was telling Mr. Stew- art what had happened. It was, as we discovered, Mr. Mallory's fault, Mr. Mallory let him go, but he told his boss that it was Chapman's failure.

Two, he turfs the blame for that missing $12,000. to the hookers that were in the hotel room. Remember the circumstances of that where Mr. Mallory testified that there were hookers


23080

in the room in Montreal, Mr. Stewart disapproved of that. That was the occasion when Mr. Mallory took the $12,000. but he left Mr. Stew- art with the impression that the hookers were to blame.

He turfed the blame for the murder of the pregnant woman to Mr. Sauvé when he was explaining himself to Michael Winn. And he didn't tell Mr. Stewart that the coke that Wayne Leduc was stealing from Mr. Stewart was being shared by Mr. Mallory. Mr. Mallory let Wayne Leduc bear full responsibility for that theft from his boss.

The Harley-Davidson, that was an interesting one. It's relevant, in my submission, to the murders. One of the lies Mr. Mallory had told at the first bail hearing as we've covered was that he'd never been to Toronto to collect money, and then it was days in, on the 29th of November, days into cross-examination that he received the Harley-Davidson because of this collection he'd done for Vanasse in Toronto.

Q. Okay. So you'd been asking for this all winter long and when the snow melted and it was motorcycle season in 1990 you were presented with this Harley.

A. Well no, I had to do something for it first.

Q. Well, what did you have to do for it first?

A. I had to do a collection for it.


23080

Q. You had to do a collection for it. Now you've never mentioned that before, sir.

A. No, I haven't, no.

Q. No. This is the first time that you've mentioned you had to do a collection for it, and who did you have to collect for?

A. Mike.

This reason for the bike from Mr. Vanasse might be believable, might have been believable even though it was revealed so late in the cross- examination except for the fact that Mr. Mallory had been questioned by his own lawyer on his first day of testimony which was the 8th of November, so -- what? -- we're 21 days later by the time he gives this new explanation for the bike. Twenty-one days earlier:

Q. And do you know why he bought you a motorcycle?

A. Well, because I was always, you know, when I was at his place I was always bugging him about it, you know, "I've got to get a bike" because he had a whole garage full of bikes, like he had, you know, vehicles, bikes. Me I just said "Geez, I'd like to get a Harley." I tried to get him to sell me one of his, like I said "I'll pay you so much a month" and he was sort of agreeing to it and then after a while he said "Wait a minute", he told me something about "maybe I can get you a bike somewhere else", so I had a feeling like the guy maybe owed him some money for a favour or whatever.


23080

Three weeks later Mr. Mallory has this new story about the bike being payment for the Toronto collection. In fact Mr. Mallory was on a roll with his lie on the 29th of November. The lie extends so that both collectors got a bike.

Q. Yeah. So you and Mr. Hately get -- does he get a Harley too?

A. I think he ended up with -- yeah I think he ended up with one too, a Sportster or something. I'm not sure. I think so.

So now we have Mr. Vanasse buying a round of Harleys for his friends. There's no other evidence that Mr. Hately was a close friend of Mr. Vanasse, no suggestion he was doing the sleep- overs at Mr. Vanasse's house, playing in his gym. So on this version there are a couple of Harleys and they're strictly payment for a collection. In that case the entire paragraph answer that Mr. Mallory gave to Mr. McKechnie in chief complete with feelings "I had a feeling like the guy maybe owed him some money for a favour or whatever" is all an invention. It's all untrue. My submission to you, of course, is that both answers are lies. The reason for the lie on the 29th of November was that Mr. Mallory, or someone, had realized that the Crown was going to suggest that the bike was payment all right, payment for the murders, and he had to invent another reason for that bike. The truth, which is what Mr. Mallory was trying


23080

to evade here, is that he got his bike in payment

for his role in the murders of Manon and Michel and

for keeping his mouth shut and that's why he made

up that new lie. In addition from Mr. Mallory we get some general facts that you can use. He tells you about Denis Roy, that he was Mr. Mallory's very close friend; that they were both cocaine addicts; they were both at the Adam Motel extortion; that Mr. Roy was muscle for another drug dealer, one in Hull; that Mr. Roy introduced Mallory and Stewart to the National President of the Outlaw motorcycle gang Claude Meunier; Mr. Roy slapped Mr. Stewart one time; Denis Gaudreault saw Mr. Roy slap a man at Mr. Mallory's apartment, something to do with gas-washed coke. We heard from Jamie Declare that Mr. Roy was one of the three people who were named in the information that Kenny gave to Mr. Stewart about the hit parade coming from the Cotroni family.

I have to correct something that I did the other day, it's just come to my head. When I went through this Denis Roy the first time I said to you that we know there were contracts from Montreal and that is a complete misstatement. We do not know for its truth that there were contracts put out on these people from Montreal. What we know is that on the evidence we have Mr. Stewart was informed that there was a contract from Montreal. To prove, of course,


23080

that there was a contract from Montreal we'd have to bring the person who put it out and said 'I offered it on the street', that person was not here. The person that was here is someone who heard about it and relayed the information to Mr. Stewart, and the reason that it's relevant is that it impacts, in the Crown's submission, the state of mind of Mr. Stewart. If he knows from Kenny, in the presence of Jamie Declare, that somebody in Montreal is looking to kill him, if Mr. Stewart takes that view, and he clearly did because he went into hiding, that tells you that Mr. Stewart took it seriously, he knew therefore that he had a problem, he had a problem with Montreal, and the issue there is that he didn't say 'My God, I don't know what that's all about.' He said 'Where am I gonna hide?' He knew what it was all about. That is relevant to his state of mind. So let me correct that. We don't have evidence that there were con-tracts. We have evidence that people told Stewart -- a person told Stewart there was a contract. In addition with Mr. Mallory, we have that Rick Riddell went and told him there was a contract on him, so it's around the same time that both of these gentlemen are informed that they are central to a problem that involves a contract and that affects their state of mind, they know they have a problem and they know they have to deal with it. To be clear, there's no evidence there


23080

was a contract and it's a very important dis-

tinction. I wanted to make that clear.What else do we get from Mr. Mallory about Mr. Roy?

We have that he was the registered owner of the

Cadillac between Flynt Kaya and James Sauvé; that

Mr. Roy shot himself in the head in Mr. Stewart's

kitchen. We have information from Mr. Mallory,

which we've covered already, as to Mr. Roy's

statements just as he kills himself. We also, of

course, have that cross-examination of Mr. Mallory

relevant to the suicide and the different version

that Mr. Mallory gave to the police at the time as

compared to the version he gave here but we won't

review all of that. We have about Claude Meunier

some information as National President of the

Outlaws motorcycle gang. He was the second most

powerful Outlaw member in North America and Mr.

Mallory agreed with that. Mallory thought it was

neat that he was the National President. Mr.

Mallory met Claude Meunier on more than one

occasion at Club 61 in Gatineau, the same place

where he met Mr. Sauvé who, he said, worked there.

Mallory was asked if he was present when Mr.

Stewart made several calls from that location to

Richard Trudel's voice mail. Those are the calls

where Trudel, according to the messages, was

failing to show up for a meeting with Stew- art's

buddy from Montreal. Stewart said such things to

Mr. Trudel as "Get down here you chicken shit,


23080

piece of shit, motherfucker" et


23080

cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Remember those calls?

Mr. Mallory confirmed that Stewart didn't talk like

that to Mr. Trudel every day. Mr. Mallory thought

he might've been there when those calls were made.

Those calls made in reference to meeting with

Claude Meunier, as I submit they were, are very

relevant to Mr. Stewart's state of mind at the

time. You'll have the tapes and the transcripts to

get the full sense of those. They're not

conversations, are they? They're one-way harangu-

ing. The messages reveal that Mr. Stewart was

completely flushed, flushed with abuse of power, in

my submission, in the context in which these calls

were made. There seems to have been a great deal of

pressure to have Mr. Meunier meet with Mallory and

Stewart and Trudel at the place where Mr. Mallory

says James Sauvé worked. There clearly exists a

relationship between the individuals involved.

Denis Roy slapped Mr. Stewart once, again that was

about a meeting with Claude Meunier. Protocol,

etiquette and punctuality seemed to be emotional

issues when they relate to Claude Meunier.

As far as Mr. Mallory's credibility goes, what can we draw from all of these examples? I mean I've got 77 pages extracted of lies and misstatements and minimizations that I could read back to you but, as I say, I'm leaving that aside, it was all recent, I'm confident that you have it in mind.


23080

Mr. Mallory has lied profoundly under oath at a number of different court proceedings related to this matter, including this trial. When he tells you under oath that he wasn't at the murders, in my respectful submission you can take no comfort from the fact that he was under oath, it simply means nothing to Mr. Mallory. There might be reasons when you're trying to decide what would it be that would motivate a person not to lie under oath. A person might simply feel obliged to tell the truth, that might be something that happens to someone. You get under oath and whether it's difficult for you or not you understand that it's an oath and you're going to tell the truth, your conscience is grasped. It might be that you embrace the general philosophy that it's wrong to lie and, therefore, you won't lie. We certainly know that those things cannot be said about Richard Mallory.

Another reason to tell the truth might be a general simple respect for the justice system. If the courtroom is to be used to determine truth it requires that people tell the truth when they come here and that way wrongs can be righted and redressed. Call it a general respect for the admin-istration of justice and the laws of the land. That's not Richard Mallory either, is it? His repeated perjury already quashes that notion. You'll recall how he was prepared to be involved in paying off


23080

the complainant in Kevin Trudeau's sexual assault

in order to thwart the proper administration of

justice. Let's be clear here, Richard Mallory doesn't care one iota about telling the truth or being bound by the oath or supporting the court process. If he thought a lie was to his advantage, as he frequently clearly did, and he thought that he could get away with it, he lied and he did it again and again and again when he testified before you. So we know that we can't rely on Mr. Mallory when he tells us what he did or didn't do on January the 16th.

He was part of the Stewart organization, he could give you some useful insight into that organization, that might be of assistance. That's the next way we could go. What does he ultimately tell you about the organization beyond those things that were extracted from his testimony that I've just reviewed? He tells you really, when it gets right down to it, he doesn't know that much after -- what? -- six years in the organization, he really doesn't know that much. All he knows about, all he knows about are the collections that he was involved in, "That's all I can tell you", and of those collections he lies to you and he attempts to minimize even those and he can't even name, when he's asked, one substantial collection he ever did in the six years with the organization; even that must be a lie.


23080

Logically the inference is available to you that that was a lie. Richard Mallory is of no help to you. He's not credible. His word can't be trusted. His lack of credibility permeates all of his evidence, including what he says about the Stewart organization. He has no good information.

His Honour will tell you that you can find Mr.

Mallory not guilty even if you do not believe him.

Certainly that possibility is open to you in law.

It's possible for you to find as a fact that Mr.

Mallory has lied to you about every aspect of the

murders and still you could possibly have a

reasonable doubt based on the case as a whole. As

Ms. Mulligan submitted the word possible isn't

always that helpful because almost anything is

possible. This judicial direction is given in every

jury trial when a person testifies. Not every

accused person takes the stand and commits perjury.

Not every accused person lies, omits a few things

as Mr. Mallory characterized it, minimizes facts

beyond recognition. This is the flip side of the

coin: The manner in which a witness testifies his

or her delivery of the evidence is important. As I

discussed in regard to Randy Wara's evidence, what

the witness claims not to know may be as important

as what he claims to know. In the case of Mr.

Mallory his denials may be found to be as false as

if he had committed perjury. In short, you may not

reason


23080

that he is a perjurer therefore he committed these

murders, but you may combine your findings of per-

jury with the other evidence to conclude that his

denials are in fact perjury as well. The adverse

inferences for Mr. Mallory's credibility don't have

to be thrown aside after you reject his testimony.

He lied too much for an innocent man. Add that to

the other evidence that's been presented. An inno-

cent man has no reason to lie. Mr. Mallory lied

again and again. All he admitted frankly is what

could be proven through the wiretaps.

My submission about Mr. Mallory is that what underlies his denials and claims of ignorance as I said is consciousness of his guilt. He can't tell you what he knows because he knows too much. He can't head into certain areas regarding his boss and the organization because it's a mine field.

Let's leave Mr. Mallory behind. Linda Béland

is ......

It's time, Your Honour.THE COURT: Yes, it is time.

--- Whereupon court recessed at 11:50 a.m.

* * * * * * * *


23080

--- Upon resuming at 12:05 p.m.--- Accused present

--- In the absence of the jury

MS. BAIR: Seventy-seven pages down to six, Your

Honour.THE COURT: Well that's good. Everybody deserves a good editor. Okay.


23081

--- Upon resuming in the presence of the juryTHE COURT: Ms. Bair.

MS. BAIR: Thank you, Your Honour.Linda Béland's evidence was that life, materi- ally at least, was very comfortable while she was married to Robert Stewart. She had all the money that she wanted for bars which she went to just about every night and bingo that she went to just about every night and day, and clothes and toys. Rob gave her money when she asked for it, any time she asked for it. She said he'd carry hundreds of dollars in cash with him all the time and that he carried his money in a black and red camera-type bag, not in a wallet, which speaks to volume, doesn't it? She said they ate out at good restaurants, the children got lots of good gifts at Christ- mastime, they owned a cottage, they had at one time owned a farm on the 10th Line, an apart-ment or two on Blake Boulevard, seadoos, ski- doos, boats, four-wheelers, dirt bikes, a pool, motor-cycles, cars. She said their cars and their motor-cycles changed frequently. She couldn't say how many times in a month her car or their car would change. She had a car. They had horses, a dog, a ferret, she had a cleaning lady, she had fur coats, mind you they had other people's initials in them but she had fur coats. They had a big screen t.v., they had leather furniture and she had as much cocaine as she wanted, and all of that was comfortable


23113

until about Christmas of 1989 when everything changed. At Christmas of 1989 they hardly had any money anymore to the point where it was impossible for her to host her family's traditional Christmas Eve dinner party. The reason that she couldn't do it that year is they didn't have the money even for that. Robert Stewart told her that he wasn't being paid. He told her that people owed him and that he owed other people, and she told you there was a lot of money that was outstanding, Robert Stewart told her, and in this time period he was spending all of this time with Richard Mallory and he told her, that is Stewart told Linda that he was tired of people not paying, that no matter what they were going to start paying, which was virtually identical, of course, to what Denis Gaudreault was told. To Denis Gaudreault he said "They were tired of little assholes like me owing them money." Stewart said to Linda he was fed up with people owing him money, he was tired of it, he was mad, and she said he cursed and he paced and he would bite his knuckle and he would growl and be agitated virtually every day at around that time period of her life, and he stayed in that general state from before Christmas of '89 right through to May when she left him and went to Florida. And the reason that she told you that she left is because in this same time period that he was having these money problems her relationship with her hus-


23113

band, Linda Béland's relationship with Robert

Stewart changed. She said that he wasn't the same

person anymore, he was always mad, he would

disappear, he wouldn't answer her calls or her

pages, and he'd beat her badly. Quite clearly,

Robert Stewart had some fairly serious problems in

and around that time, quite clearly they were

related to drugs and money for drugs and the money

that he owed for drugs and he wasn't dealing very

well with them either.

In May of 1990 Linda Béland said she took $7,000. which she found in an IGA shopping bag in the front hallway on the floor at her house near Orleans and she took that money and she went to Florida with her friend Carole Amyotte. You recall that Mr. Stewart's records were in the name of Carole Amyotte, his cell phone records, that's who his phone was registered to, and that turns out to be Linda Béland's best friend. Anyway, Linda and Carole Amyotte went to Florida with the $7,000. She, Linda that is, didn't know how long the $7,000. had been in that IGA bag right by the front door, she wasn't able to answer, and she said to Ms. Mulligan in fact in cross-examination it could well have been there for months. It's curious that the amount is $7,000., I'm not sure exactly how much you can make of that, but $7,000. is exactly what Lois Davidson saw being counted out and set aside by Michel Giroux on January the 14th.


23113

Your evidence of a cash crunch is firmly estab-lished through Linda Béland, aside from what Mr. Chapman tells you and aside from what Mr. Mallory says on the wires that we've already discussed. Robert Stewart owed and Rob Stewart owed lots, he said so, and he acted that way too, that's what he told Linda, he had money problems and he cared about it. He needed a solution. When Linda left and went to Florida in May of 1990, however, that was the end of that phase of her relationship with Robert Stewart and consequently that's the end of your window into Mr. Stewart's demeanour in that part of his life. We don't know as much about how he behaved after May because Linda wasn't there to see it.

When she got back Linda Béland testified that her children had been discovered where she had left them at her cousin's place and in her absence Mr. Stewart took the children from her cousin and put them somewhere else and when she returned he wouldn't tell her where her children were. She wasn't able to find them. She herself was living with relatives until September, she said, when she got her own apartment on Columbus; It was just around the start of school. She said that it occurred to her that her children might in fact be at the cottage and she got a ride with someone, I think it was her brother, to find out if her children were at the cottage and as it turns out she was


23113

right, that's where they were, and she said she took them back with her to her apartment on Columbus just around the beginning of the school year.

Well that only matters because in this time period, the entirety of that time period between May and September, Linda Béland recalled her relationship with Mr. Stewart as hostile, and it was hostile based on the fact that she recalls that he wouldn't tell her where her children were in that period and that that entire time was permeated with this hos-tility between them and her search for her children and she's able to give you the start is when she went to May and the end -- sorry, when she left in May and the end was September when she got her apartment and got her kids back for school. She testified that she spent no time with Robert Stewart during that time period. She believed they were not together, she in fact was sure of it, yet when she heard the wiretapped conversation between herself and Denis Gaudreault in a hotel room she was in the hotel room with Robert Stewart in Montreal. She remembered the phone call, she remembered being in Montreal with Robert Stewart, but the curious part of it and the problem is that the date of that interception was August the 18th of 1990, it was her wedding anniversary and it fell right in that time period when she didn't believe she had any contact with Robert Stew-


23113

art. She also recalled another conversation wherein

he'd been calling her from a bar in Hull when she

and her mother were at the cottage. That

conversation, which she remembered, was from July

of 1990, in the same time period when she believes

that she didn't have her children and she was

angry about it and therefore she didn't have

contact with her husband. There were other

conversations that were intercepted between herself

and Stewart during that summer when they were

discussing efforts to get back together and that

Stewart was angry that someone had told his parents

about them being in fact back together in June or

July of 1990. Those events and those conversations

don't exist for Linda Béland. The wires put Béland

and Stewart in contact and discussing their

children during the time she believes they were

not. Those events are gone for her. Clearly, there

are large gaps in the memory of Linda Béland at

least in the summer of 1990, large gaps. These

issues and events that she has lost from the summer

of 1990 are concerned with her children, arguably

very significant issues and events. If Linda Béland

has no recollection of issues surrounding her

children, issues with monumental significance to

her, my question is what expectation should you

have that she ought to remember driving Denis

Gaudreault home one night in January of 1990 which

would have been a totally insignificant, innocuous


23113

event in her


23113

life at a time when she was using one or two or three grams of cocaine a night and the days were rolling into each other through drugs and heavy alcohol use? There's nothing significant about driving Denis Gaudreault home at that time of her life and she doesn't recall it. Understandably, in my submission, she's missing the occasional detail about insignificant events. When she says "I don't remember driving Denis Gaudreault home" there is a context to that statement and I'd ask you to bear in mind these gaps in her memory. She says she remembers what she remembers pretty well but there are blanks, and she told you that she's tried to forget large portions of an unpleasant period in her life. She put it this way:

I lived a very hard and awful life. There's a lot of things I don't want to remember because they're not nice things to remember, and there's other things that I'm just blank I guess because I want to block them, I'm not sure, but beside everything else I have a good memory, it's just that those things that I experienced with Robert I just want to forget.

Q. Do you try to bring this period of your life back and remember it in detail?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And are you able to?

A. No.

The other part of the equation about driving Denis is how it was raised for her the first time which, in her evidence, was by Robert


23113

Stewart when he was in jail already, pointing to the disclosure that he had had from the Crown and saying to her "Look, Linda, they're framing me. See? They say you drove Denis Gau- dreault home. You didn't." She says her response was "I don't remember driving him", not 'I didn't do it'. Linda was still loyal to Robert Stewart at that point and Stewart was telling her she didn't do it, that was the position she adopted but, in my submission, it came from him. When the police finally were able to speak to her, when she would speak to them, she said the same thing, that she didn't remember it, she didn't drive him she didn't think. She never vehemently denied driving him, contrary to the submissions from the defence. She was always equivocal. She says "I didn't. As far as I'm concerned I didn't. I don't remember it." She can't say she didn't and she can't say she did.

In the final analysis Linda Béland was not friendly to the police, welcoming discussions, until 1993 when she was divorced from Mr. Stew- art. Her memory about January 1990, therefore, wasn't tapped, no one tried to have her discuss that issue from the police perspective until 1993. That's almost four years, October 1993, almost four years after the event and the event in question was driving a man she knew home before midnight one night in January of 1990. Before 1993 she said that she had accepted


23113

Robert Stewart was being framed, that was her frame of mind. I submit that the only real memory Linda Béland has about driving Denis Gaudreault home is that Robert Stewart told her she didn't do it.

Ms. Béland also gave some gun-related information about Mr. Stewart, the man that Richard Mallory told you guns were not his way. Linda's experience was different. In the fall of 1990 she recounted a time when he was saying there was someone after him, he was supposed to come over to her house, he said he wouldn't come without a gun, she said "Don't come with a gun." He came, got out of the car with something under a blanket that was long, she thought it was a gun, she wouldn't let him in the house. She said there was a similar incident in 1986. She said Mr. Stewart bought BB guns for her children, she disapproved of them. It led to conflict between herself and her husband. She said she didn't allow guns in her house and Robert Stewart knew that, it was an issue for her, which speaks to why the guns would've been stored at Denis Gaudreault's house, doesn't it? She also recounted a conversation that she had with Jamie Declare con- cerning guns as follows, April the 16th she testified:

A. What I clearly remember, it's clear and vague because I don't quite understand what was going on but I was at their house once ..."


23113

which is Jamie Declare's house A. ... I was at their house once because

Robert just beat the crap out of me and I went to see Sandy because I needed to see someone, and we were sitting in the kitchen and we were just talking and Jamie came in the house, he was going in and out, and then at one point he'd say "Your fucking husband is crazy, he's got these guns here" and I said "What do you mean he's got guns?" and it was just so vaguely and I don't know if it was -- it had something to do with Denis Gaudreault because he kept going in and out and something about guns he had to clean or he wanted Jamie to clean. Jamie didn't want to have nothing to do with it but towards when or why I don't know but I do remember at one point that did happen.

Linda places that conversation about a month before

Jamie and Sandy left Ottawa, which is pretty close,

is it not?, to January the 16th? She told you that

her husband changed his appearance fairly

regularly, he'd change his beard or his mustache.

He was reluctant to be videotaped. He told her it

was to fool whoever was watching him. He tried to

never look the same for too long. She told you that

when he said he was trying to fool who was watching

him he was talking about the police or undercovers.

She said he changed cars all the time. She said the

cars were registered in other people's names like

Rick Mallory's brother, but never in Mr. Stewart's

name. He didn't have a licence, she said. It might

be another reason why Denis


23113

Gaudreault had to drive. Their properties weren't in Mr. Stewart's name, she believed they were in Wendy's name. All of this corroborates Denis Gaudreault's information. She also told you that when she went to Montreal with her husband they never stayed in the same hotel twice and that he went two or three times a month.

She was also home the night that Denis Roy killed himself and she confirmed that their son Douglas was also there as Denis told his sister Sylvie on the phone, the son was home the night Denis Roy killed himself. Linda told you that they banged on the door when they came by and that the first thing that Denis Roy did was ask if their dog Brutus was there, Rob Stewart told him that Brutus had died, and then the next thing he did was stomp their pet ferret to death. So much for the defence position that this was a despondent, depressed Denis Roy. I think Mr. Mallory also testified that Mr. Roy was not angry or upset. Linda Béland could hear them talking upstairs and she started yelling that it wasn't a party house and she started to come upstairs, Mr. Stewart told her to stay down but she was insisting at which point Denis Roy told her "Shut up or you're going to get it." More contrary to the despondent, depressed Mr. Roy. That annoyed Linda Béland. She said "Oh yeah?" and proceeded up the stairs until Rob said "Stay down there and don't you come up


23113

here" in a voice that caused her to freeze in her tracks and she stayed down. She heard a bang and then Mr. Stewart ran down and told her to get dressed and said "Denis just shot himself." She said Robert was panicked. They did not call 9-1-1 although she suggested it. They carried Mr. Roy to the car, he was going to the hospital, Mr. Mallory was going to take him to the hospital, and he was making that awful noise that we've discussed, she said she could still hear it today like he was trying to catch his breath. She said it was very loud as well, also bearing a striking resemblance to what Mr. McFadden described. Linda Béland heard what Denis Roy said just before he shot himself, and I've covered this, it was that he was upset because nobody believed him, upset that nobody believed him and they thought he was lying, she told you that Denis Roy was angry, all of which seems to suggest that Mr. Roy shot himself not out of depression but consistent with the theory based on the fact that he was trying to avoid being shot himself. He killed himself so as not to be shot first. He killed himself to avoid the contract. Yet Mr. Mallory testified that Denis Roy had no business relationship with Robert Stewart whatsoever. Here's Mr. Roy at Mr. Stewart's kitchen table saying "You don't trust me, I'm a heavy load", whatever he was saying belies that there was no relationship between them.


23113

Richard Mallory tried to tell you that Robert Stewart was essentially Mr. Roy's counsellor in times of stress and difficulty. Nothing more. So what was this lying he was concerned about? What was his disbelief related to? Why Robert Stewart's kitchen to kill himself in? Why no concern for the presence of the wife and the child and their sensibilities being offended by observing a sui-cide in their kitchen when it's perfectly apparent to Mr. Roy that they're awake and alive and observing it? Clearly there's a great deal more to that. And then there was the Denis Roy incident at Blake Boulevard, that Linda testified about, not too long before Mr. Roy died when Roy slapped Robert Stewart and Mr. Stewart didn't defend himself. She says Mallory said to "cool it" but Stewart did nothing. In the Crown's submission that little slapping incident was just an intermediate step towards whatever caused Denis Roy to stomp Stewart's ferret and kill himself in Stewart's kit-chen over not being trusted and believed. It involved Robert Stewart, it involved Richard Mallory and Denis Roy and Claude Meunier. Mr. Mallory had all the players right when he described it to you but he had the wrong spin. Was Stewart accusing Denis Roy of spoiling the shipment? Was he demanding payment?

Let me just pause to note should we be able to demonstrate to you in absolute detail the


23113

precise motives each step along the way marching towards what caused these people to be murdered in a business that relies on absolute secrecy? Should we be able to present to you the business records in the hierarchy of the pay stubs so you know who did what where and to whom? It's not going to happen in a business that relies on maintaining secrecy and relies on hiding. The most you're going to get when the people who can give you the links are dead - Denis Roy is dead, Manon Bourdeau, Michel Giroux are both dead - those are the people who could tell you exactly what happened and why. You're left with inferences from the information that is available and the inferences are strong. Don't expect it to be written out.

Linda said Rick Mallory was with Rob Stewart in

this Christmas of '89 period more than she was. She

said he was more than the wife to Mr. Stewart, that

is Mallory was more the wife to Stewart than she

was and that he was better off than she was. She

said that Stewart and Mallory were always together

and yet Richard Mallory came here and told you he

knew virtually nothing of the business. Randy Wara

by contrast said he was Stewart's right-hand man.

Linda Béland said she knew him only as the tile man

at the cottage. She didn't even know if he was

involved in the business. It's hard to reconcile

which of Mr. Mallory or Mr. Wara was telling the

truth, or if either of them was. My


23113

submission to you would be that Mr. Wara over- emphasized his role and Mr. Mallory under-empha-sized his role. Certainly Linda Béland has no stake in misrepresenting her observations of either of those two men.

She also told you she knew Vanasse and Stewart were involved in the drug business together whereas Mr. Mallory was only able to hazard a guess about that, as you recall. She told you that Robert Stewart had a red metal thing for a car, obviously a jack, a hydraulic press thing in the garage, he used it to compress his coke, she told you. So much for the executive image of a man who wouldn't get his hands dirty with the product, she has Robert Stewart re-pressing cocaine. She described the pocket organizer calculator thing, she wasn't permitted to see it or to use it, Stewart was angry if she looked at it. Again, Gaudreault could be forgiven for thinking that that instrument contained valuable information that might move Mr. Stewart to a guilty plea if Mr. Stewart felt that he should make a deal since the police had that information.

You'll recall Linda said that she was a cocaine user and she also said that like Mr. Mallory she would go to Mr. Stewart's associates and get cocaine for her own use and she wouldn't pay for it either. Like everybody else she was taking a piece of Mr. Stewart's potential profit margin out of him every single day.


23113

Virtually everyone who had access to his cocaine was taking it from him. He wasn't an excellent businessman, it's obvious why he was losing money, everybody had a hand in his pocket and Linda was one of them. His inventory control was sorrily sorrily lacking. Linda told you that she knew some of the rules of the drug world, like you don't speak about drugs over the phone and she knew that from Robert Stewart telling her, he said that the phones might be tapped. He told her that "You never call the police on Robert Stewart, never." You might remember this exchange:

Q. You told us that in the summer of 1990 when you came back from Florida, actually you got your children in September, you didn't know where they were.

A. Exactly.

is her answer.Q. Why didn't you call the police?

A. Are to you crazy? You don't call the police on Robert Stewart because I was always told not to call the police.

Q. When did you first get told that you don't call the police on Robert Stew- art?

A. From the beginning, from when I met him when I got my first beating.

Q. What did he tell you?

A. That I don't call the police - ever.


23113

Q. Did you take that seriously?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you given a reason?

A. He sells drugs. You don't call the police when he sells drugs.

Q. How seriously did you take that warning?

A. What warning?

Q. That you don't call the police on Robert Stewart.

A. I took it seriously. Wouldn't you if you got beat up?

Q. What if, for instance, something was stolen from you could you call the police for that?

A. Well of course.

Q. Explain the difference.

A. Well the difference is if somebody is stealing something from me it's material, nobody can do anything to their material but to help you find it back ---

Q. Right.

A. --- which is that if I call the police on Robert then they would investigate and Robert didn't want that.

Linda knew that, Denis Gaudreault knew that, Jamie Declare knew that. Everybody knew that. Clearly Manon Bourdeau and Michel Giroux were violating the


23113

code.


23113

Linda said that towards the end of her time in Orleans, again that ended in May of '90, that Michel Vanasse and Robert Stewart were not on good terms anymore and that the issue between them was drug-related. She knew of James Sauvé, she knew of him as always being with Richard Trudel, and she knew Richard Trudel and Robert Stewart were involved in drugs together. She told you that on one occasion when she came home from bingo Trudel and Sauvé and Stewart were at her home going skidooing, that was obviously in the winter, then, which would make it '89-'90 because that's when she lived there in Orleans. On another occasion she recounted coming home to find Trudel and Stewart in her living room-kitchen area talking about some-thing, and what she overheard was Robert Stew- art say "No matter what happens we stick together". She said she didn't know what they were talking about but that's what she heard "No matter what happens we stick together." Of course you know what they were talking about. It was right at the time that she had just heard about the Cumberland murders on the news and then she heard this "No matter what we stick together", so she looked at her husband and she said "What's going on here? What kind of place is this? Denis Roy kills himself in our house and then not too long after there's these Cumberland murders." And then she asked sarcastically "Do you know these people? Do you


23113

have anything to do with that?" How many of you turned to your spouses when you heard about the Cumberland murders and said 'Do you have anything to do with that?' Was it random? It's reminiscent of Denis Gaudreault "They're all the same gang, all connected." They were all connected for Linda too. Stewart answered "No, but if I did there's one thing, you never tell your wife" and then Trudel and Stewart went outside to talk where she couldn't overhear them anymore.

She overheard another part of a conversation another day that I've already referred to but it's important to touch on again and that's the Mars restaurant conversation where she overhears Mr. Mallory telling Stewart that he just saved his life because Mallory is -- the situation is that Stewart was supposed to go and meet James Sauvé at the Mars restaurant on Industrial Road for some reason but Rick Mallory told Stewart that Sauvé wanted to kill him, that Sauvé had a gun and was waiting to shoot Stewart and so it was best that he not go. Mallory told Stewart that Sauvé was a whacko, a crazy guy, according to Linda Béland, and that he, Mallory that is, had just saved Stewart's life. Again, the relevance of that is to put it into context with what Mr. Mallory said to Mr. Winn which was that Sauvé went crazy, Mallory had no idea what he was going to do on January the 16th '90. This Mars restaur-


23113

ant evidence from Linda Béland shows that Mr.

Mallory knew exactly what Mr. Sauvé was like and

exactly what he was capable of, and he considered

him a whacko long before he was chosen as the guy

to go with them to the house on Queen Street in

January with a bunch of loaded weapons. Linda

Béland heard Mallory tell Stewart he shouldn't hang

around with Sauvé. Mr. McKechnie has asked you to

consider Mr. Winn's evidence in the event that you

reject Mr. Mallory, as I'm sure you will, but when

you consider what Mr. Winn said, as Mr. McKechnie

invited you to do, consider this evidence from Ms.

Béland as well. They chose James Sauvé because he

was a whacko. It's extremely compelling evidence,

in my submission to you, of intent. It's part of

the planning and deliberation involved in getting

the right personnel together to do the job. They

hired Mr. Sauvé essentially on the basis of the

strength of their belief that he was just crazy

enough to be able to do what they needed him to do,

that's why Mr. Mallory told Stewart "No problem"

when they got back in the car, it meant 'we were

right, we got the right guy, he did the job, it's

over, we're safe, let's go.'

When you're considering Mr. Winn's evidence and trying to decide how much of what Mr. Mallory said was true also consider that Linda Béland said that Mr. Mallory looked sad in court here, but he was still Mr. Tough Guy when he went by


23113

Sylvie Gravelle's place. He was still Mr. Tough

Guy, according to Linda Béland, when she got back

in May of 1990 and he was looking to -- he was

supposed to be there to intimidate her at the

airport when she got back, he didn't show up but he

was still being used for that at that point.

Stewart told her that. How upset, in the circum-

stances where you have information that Mr. Mallory

hasn't left the job entirely behind, he's still

prepared to be the muscle, he's still prepared to

behave in an intimidating fashion, how upset was he

by these murders that he observed on the 16th of

January? Was he as upset as he was trying to

portray to Mr. Winn that he was?

Stewart was asked a number of times whether he committed these murders by Ms. Béland when she was married to him. The first was right after they happened, we've covered that one where he said, 'but if I was I don't tell my wife.' The next time was in jail when he told Linda that he was being framed, that was the time when he told her that she did not drive Denis home, and she said the third time she asked him he just simply didn't answer, and then there are those letters. I'd ask you to review those letters, I'm not going to do it in detail, but my submission to you is those letters were designed to intimidate Linda Béland and keep her from trusting the police and the letters are riddled and replete with attempts to do that, things


23113

like "we're always going to be together because of

the kids, no court in the land can change that." My

submission is he's telling her 'you won't get away

from me, we're always going to be together'.

They're veiled threats. She said that the letters

affected her. She said that his statement that

Colin was using her affected her. She said that --

well, she said that he tried to rewrite history,

that there's a reference in one of the letters that

says "Remember that letter I sent you about the

divorce, you knew I was joking", she told you that

there was nothing joking about it, Mr. Stewart was

trying to rewrite something completely. He also

told her that he didn't beat her; she said he did.

Clearly if he could try and tell Linda Béland he

didn't beat her he thinks he can control what she

says or what she knows. In my submission that's

what happened on the car issue. In any case, if

he's trying to intimidate Linda Béland from

speaking to the police or cooperating with the

police or testifying, if he's trying to intimidate

her away from Colin Burrell it begs the question

why? What does he have to hide?

Exhibits 236 and 237, they're filed. Linda Béland testified that in the one where he says "Come on, talk to me again, I don't bite" what that meant to her was he doesn't bite but he punches, that's how she interpreted it. The signature, by the way, is R.S., it's the same


23113

way Denis Gaudreault described it, and what else would it be but R.S.? I suppose it could be R. Stewart. It's R.S., just like Denis described the notations in his book.

Here's the portion of transcript relating to Stewart trying to tell her that -- trying to get her to change her story:

Q. Did Mr. Stewart ever speak to you about information that you'd already given to the police?

A. Yes.

Q. What was that?

A. He phoned me once, he was upset because he said the police said that he had beat me and he said he never did, and he did on a regular basis.

So here's Mr. Stewart trying to tell her, who lived it, that he never beat her. He's upset because the police have that information and her evidence was that he tried to get her to change this information, information she'd already given over. He clearly believed he could change history, rewrite it. He wasn't in the real world, in my submission. He seems to believe he could convince Linda Béland of anything and he almost convinced her she never drove Denis home that night. The best against in the end as to whether she did or she didn't from Linda Béland is "What I'm sure of is that I'm 100 percent not sure if I drove him or if I didn't drove him."


23113

The next letter, there's one thing that I've touched on where he says:

Out of the 15 people interviewed by the Rockland OPP who knew the people who got mur-dered none have ever seen us with them. They all said he paid cash for his drugs and keep his money in his drawer at home, ...

and the critical part:... so our story about a drug rip look real good, everything check out 100 percent.

"... our story about a drug rip look real good, everything check out 100 percent", "our story" is what it is, it's a story. Is cover story not implied? Can't you read that in "cover story"? He's assuming Linda Béland knows, is he not? At this point early on, it's a 1991 letter, he doesn't have his guard up, Linda Béland is still loyal, they're still married, his guard is not up and he says to her "... our story about a drug rip ..." checks out.

She told you that he gave her feedback further, my submission is that in furtherance of his efforts to keep her from cooperation and to keep her from testifying and to keep her from talking to you he gave her feedback on one of her last appearances when she testified and this is a portion of her transcript on that point:

Q. And, Ms. Béland, you've testified before.

A. Yes, I did.


23113

Q. Did Mr. Robert Stewart give you any feedback on that?

A. Yes he did. He said that the people didn't believe my story because I don't remember driving Denis Gau- dreault, so he said that the people didn't believe me.

Q. About that?

A. M'hmm-hmm.

Q. And what is it that you testified to before about Denis Gaudreault and whether you drove him, what did you say?

A. I don't remember driving him.

Q. And did you say ---

She interrupts:A. And I don't remember if I drove him or

if I didn't drive him. I don't remember.

Q. And it was that that Mr. Stewart told you that wasn't believed.

A. That's right.

Q. Did that affect you in any way?

A. Yes.

Q. Why is that?

A. Because I'm telling the truth so why wouldn't they believe me.

In addition, it's important to bear in mind that he

told her that as long as he was married to her she


23113

couldn't testify. You have to ask yourselves, in my

submission, is he concerned


23113

about what she's going to remember? Is he con-

cerned that that drive with Denis Gaudreault is

going to come back? Is that what this intimidation

is all about? I'll give you just a list now of the other points

that Linda has confirmed. Mallory is a coke addict

and a heavy user always, as far as she knew him,

which contributes to business losses, obviously.

She said Robert Stewart also used cocaine. She said

Chapman and Stewart dealt drugs together. She was

there the day of the Ivan Integra Robert Stewart

rip. John Chap-man disappeared, she said, and Rob

was looking for him in Toronto somewhere. Vanasse

spoke French. Robert Stewart knew how to curse in

French; she said he lived with her, of course he

knew. Jamie was a stash house. She got coke from

Jamie. She says Jamie wasn't a user of cocaine when

she knew him and nor was Sandy. She said Stewart

told her that he had a contact in Bell and he could

get her number. It's interesting, isn't it?, he

tells his wife about his tentacles into various

other businesses just as he tells everyone else in

his employ and they believed him. She got hash from

Denis and she didn't pay. She knew Rhonda and liked

her. She confirmed the phone call from Rhonda about

the baby kidnapping. She told you that when she

confronted her husband about that he said "No, I

never said that." Clearly the phone records and the


23113

evidence confirm that it hap-


23113

pened but again he's denying information to Linda.

The fundamental importance of the evidence of Linda

Béland is that there were money problems in her

husband's business around Christmas of 1989. Robert

Stewart was owed a lot of money and he owed a lot

of money in return. She was kept on the outside as

far as the details of the business went but she was

there and she seemed to know more than Mr. Mallory

knew and she lived some of it and her evidence is

very illuminating, as are the wires that were

introduced through Detective Lamarche.

Continue to 1:00, Your Honour? THE COURT: Madam Reporter, are you ---THE COURT REPORTER: I'm fine, Your Honour.THE COURT: All right. Continue, yes. MS. BAIR: Okay. I'm going to finish today, Your Honour.THE COURT: You're going to finish today? All right.MS. BAIR: Detective Lamarche testified about some 26 wiretap intercepts and they were filed and I'm not going to go over all of them because they'll be for you to review but some of them I'd like to highlight.

5th of June of 1990 is a wire between Michel Vanasse and Robert Stewart and they're discussing their mutual business concerns. Mr. Vanasse indicates that he tried to reach Rick and how


23113

the Denis Roy matter "should be all right." That suicide had been on the 17th of November, 1989. It's apparent that the organization received heat but carried into June of 1990. It's a big issue, wasn't it?, that Denis Roy suicide?

6th of June of 1990 Trudel and Stewart are discuss-ing mutual concerns and Trudel asks Stewart if he straightened out a certain problem or if Stewart wants Trudel to do it. It speaks to the nature of their relationship and also that they solve each other's problems, doesn't it? Rick Trudel and his muscle, in the Crown's submission, previously assisted in straightening out the Michel Giroux-Manon Bour- deau problem and that's why we're here.

On the 8th of June of 1990 Rob Stewart and Michel Vanasse discussing business. When Rob Stewart mentions problems with Rick, Vanasse discusses dumping him and he offers to do Mallory's job for Stewart. In a confessional comment in this wire Rob Stewart is bragging to Michel Vanasse about being the best hitman in the business. Listen to the tape carefully, it clearly exposes the desperate inference of the defence and Richard Mallory to turn this into "pitman". There's no evidence he spent a great deal of time at card tables or that he worked on race cars. It was "hitman", it was clear, it was clear in context and it has to be clear in the entire context of this case what he was


23113

talking about.

The 19th of June of 1990 it's Danielle, Rick Trudel's girlfriend at the time, telling Jacques Trudel that Michel Vanasse wants him to call, wants Jacques to call Michel Vanasse. This is just another example of the tangible ties between the Trudel and Stewart organizations, they were in a partnership.

The 30th of June of 1990 this is Rick Trudel talking to Jacques Trudel about getting together with Stewart who Rick Trudel describes as a big mouth and a person yapping his mouth. From the evidence it's clear that that's consistent with what we know of Mr. Stewart, he talks a lot. Rick Trudel also refers to an earlier incident when he says, and I'm quoting, "Well, fuck, look what happened first time, bing bang, you know, holy fuck, you know" and Rick Trudel tells Jacques Trudel how he had to prove himself.

The 7th of July of '90 this is Stewart speaking to Danny Vanderyt apparently about a problem with the D'Angelos. Remember Mr. Vanderyt said that he'd been ripped off for more than he could afford. When Danny Vanderyt -- well, he was seeking assistance from Mr. Stewart to deal with this problem, when Vanderyt asks if they found "that idiot", Stewart indicates that a meeting is set up. Vanderyt indicates he talked to D'Angelo and was threatened with death and


23113

Robert Stewart immediately advises "Well next time pack" which we know means carry a gun. This and other wiretap evidence, especially out of Stewart's mouth, makes ridiculous, ridiculous Mr. Mallory's most obvious lie that this was a business with no guns. Remember he told you it wasn't his way, referring to Mr. Stew- art, "guns were not his way."

I forgot one other lie that I should touch on. What about the white Cadillac, why does Mr. Mallory take such great pains to tell you that he had nothing to do with that white Cadillac and he never even saw that white Cadillac after Denis Roy had it which means that he didn't see it after November the 17th of 1989, why would he say that when it is abso-lutely obvious that that car is full of Rob Stewart's materials, full of Richard Trudel's materials and in current use, current use by the time that the police get it in February? And you'll note that it's February the 14th or 15th that it's towed from O'Toole's and Stewart left it there. We know that Stewart and Mallory are in constant con-tact. How believable is it when Mr. Mallory tells you that he never saw that white Cadillac after the 17th of November of 1989? It's not believable and when he lies about that then you must ask yourselves why. Clearly he was trying to distance himself from the car that was used in the murder but his fingerprints are found in


23113

it and he has to account for how that would be.

That is an obvious lie that he knew nothing about

that car. Back to the wires. The 14th of July of 1990 it's Michel Vanasse speaking to Robert Stewart about getting his finances in order and he says "Can we get your numbers worked down so we can put you back in shape?" Mr. Vanasse also says "Stop fucking playing with everybody's money." It's confirmatory to a certain extent of Linda Béland's evidence that their relationship was kind of on the outs. This organization is obviously concerned with Robert Stewart and Stew- art's superior, Mr. Vanasse, is obviously trying to deal with him.

The 15th of August of 1990 there's a conversation

between Wayne Leduc and Rick Mallory. Rick Mallory

in August of 1990 is obviously in trouble. He is

hiding out at the Parkway Motel from Mike Vanasse,

in my submission, and he's looking for a gun to

protect himself, he's looking for added protection

against Vanasse which means the organization, does

it not? What do you need a gun for? What are you

expecting if you need a gun to protect yourself?

He's not expecting somebody to come over and give

him a slap, is he? He's expecting a gun. This

organization used guns.

The next witness, Your Honour, would be Richard Gravelle and maybe it would be appropriate to


23113

stop at this point.

THE COURT: All right.

Would it help a bit if we came back at 2:00?MS. BAIR: I will be finished well within the time available, Your Honour.THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

--- Whereupon the jury retired at 12:55 p.m.


23113

--- In the absence of the jury MS. MULLIGAN: Your Honour, I just wanted to indicate, and I suppose all of us can maybe think about how this can best work out timing- wise. I have provided my friends with three cases and I'll probably provide one more, although I think Mr. Dandyk already has it, on two separate issues, one being the comment on the failure of Mr. Stewart to testify, I don't yet have the transcript of that. Your Honour had said you needed to see that, just that portion, I'm not criticizing anyone, I just don't have it yet so I can't make that argument yet. There is also the other issue of potentially the right of reply and/or comment by Your Honour in your charge with respect to some of the things or some of the bits and pieces that Ms. Bair has raised that I would be submitting are either inflammatory or not at all in evidence or don't fairly state the evidence as the Crown is obliged to do.

So ,I don't know when Your Honour wishes to start those. Ms. Bair has said she'll be done well within the time. Unfortunately at this time I don't have all those bits and pieces, many of them arose today in fact, so I can't go back and find Your Honour the evidence to compare it with what Ms. Bair has said this afternoon. I'm prepared to come in on the weekend, I'm certainly prepared to come in early on Monday but I leave it in Your Honour's hands


23118

and anyone else's hands, including Madam Court Reporter and the Crowns, to try and figure out what timing -- when we should do that. It certainly has to be done, in my submission, before Your Honour charges the jury because one of the alternative remedies is to have Your Honour correct some misstatements that Ms. Bair may have made.THE COURT: M'hmm-hmm.MS. BAIR: I haven't prepared anything about what I would've objected to and my friend is opposing, Your Honour, I just put that all way way back in my mind. I have no comment at all.THE COURT: Well, let's see how we get along and where we're at and maybe we can deal with some of it and maybe we can argue a good part of it today. I don't know when we're going to be done, that's part of it.MS. BAIR: I have Richard Gravelle and Sylvie Gravelle and a wrap-up, that's all. THE COURT: All right. MS. BAIR: I don't know either because I haven't written the wrap-up just yet.THE COURT: All right. Okay.

Well, maybe we can get some in today and if we need to we can come in tomorrow.MS. MULLIGAN: My difficulty with doing it today, Your Honour, is I suspect when I say 'Ms. Bair said this but the evidence is this' Ms. Bair will disagree with me, so I need go to have the actual -- go and search out the actual pieces of evidence that contradict what Ms.


23118

Bair has told the jury or explain what Ms. Bair has told the jury, so I'm not sure that it can reasonably be done, and also the other portion of the transcript that I don't yet have that Your Honour wished to have before I made those submissions. I'm certainly prepared to come in Saturday or Sunday, or whatever, but I think it'd be difficult to do today and do without both of us just saying 'does not', 'did not', 'did too' kind of thing.THE COURT: Well, in the past, before we had such instantaneous or virtually instantaneous transcripts, courts for years did it on the basis that the trier had a recollection, the Crown had a recollection, the defence had a recollection and people had to do it as they saw fit, so it wasn't such a textual analysis maybe as counsel suggested. I'm not saying it's not better, I'm just saying we're all within certain time frames and I'm certainly prepared to come in tomorrow to listen to the argument and if at some later point a transcript comes up which is conclusive or something I could deal with that too by not ruling in a sense until the very last minute, especially on the remedy of whether it goes into my charge or whether it doesn't, that sort of thing.MS. MULLIGAN: I'm certainly prepared to do that, Your Honour. The issue of whether Ms. Bair made a comment on the failure of Mr. Stew- art to testify, however .....


23118

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, may I interrupt, Your Honour? I did look it up this morning and it's not exactly what was said.MS. BAIR: It's not there.THE COURT REPORTER: It's not there.MS. MULLIGAN: Well, .....THE COURT REPORTER: I went through it.THE COURT: Well, obviously counsel does think it's there so what we need to have is what's there, obviously.MS. MULLIGAN: On that issue, Your Honour, I can't -- I mean the only remedy for that is a mistrial so that's a separate issue altogether. The other issues, of course, are things that Your Honour may need to include and those are transcripts that I have that I can research tonight, find the actual text in the evidence so that it can be accurate and there won't be a lot of fighting back and forth about what was or was not said.THE COURT: Okay. Yeah, because I was wondering about remedies on the issue of failure to testify. It would be interesting how the trial judge who's under a similar injunction could explain to the jury in his charge why the Crown attorney couldn't mention that, but anyway. Okay.MS. BAIR: Well, that's why I didn't do it, Your Honour, I thought it would be best not to get into that.

THE COURT: All right, but anyway we'll see what

time we have this afternoon and tomorrow.


23118

--- Whereupon court recessed at 1:00 p.m.

* * * * * * * *

--- Upon resuming at 2:15 p.m. --- Accused present

THE COURT: I made a photocopy of part of the charge

dealing with possible verdicts where I've tried to

reduce it down to about four pages, the whole

thing, which is about 80 pages, so I think this is

an area where the greatest danger lies, I guess,

when you reduce something down having done too much

or something, so I'd like to get counsel to look at

that and if anybody wants to say anything they can

over the next couple of days when we will

doubtlessly be meeting about other matters. It's

sort of the decisional tree idea, from the greatest

to the least.

Anyway, bring in the jury, please.


23118

--- Upon resuming in the presence of the jury

THE COURT: Ms. Bair.

MS. BAIR: Thank you.I'm just trying to remember where it was, I can't remember where it was, I think it might've been in the Jesty and Baker statement from Mr. Stewart but I know it's before you that there's some point where Mr. Stewart suggested that it would be improbable for five of them to go in a Cadillac down the main street of Orleans, and I wanted to answer that question why bring the white Cadillac - it seems to me that it would draw attention to it - and my answer for the reason that they brought the Cadillac is that they would fit, which I've already said; it's also because it's too far to walk. I also wanted to point out that they'd been driving that car, clearly, in the pursuit of this business, it's been part of the drug-dealing business for a long time, it's not like they only used it for church and then this date they took it on a hit. It's part of their planning to get as much use out of it as a car they've used many times to get away with crime or to -- I mean drug dealing is crime, so this is not a departure. I just wanted to point that out.

Richard Gravelle. Richard Gravelle is a simple man by which I don't mean stupid, I just mean uncompli-cated. He wasn't extremely eloquent before you but he wasn't complicated. My sub-

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

mission is he was straightforward and honest and I would submit that you can comfortably believe everything Richard Gravelle said to you. He said that he wasn't a friend to the police, that he wasn't comfortable with testifying in fact because he didn't like being considered a stool pigeon. He said "because friends know what's happened to me here, like I'm a stool pigeon. I don't consider myself a stool pigeon, I'm protecting my family right now."

Q. Without threats would you have been involved?

A. Probably not, no. If I wouldn't've been threatened I would never have stepped forward with the information I knew.

Richard Gravelle was actually at that time a hash dealer and a cocaine user, that's in Janu- ary of 1990, and as such he had every reason not to invite the police into his life and yet on the 1st of February that's exactly what he did.

dWhen Robert Stewart phoned him and said on the phone "You lied to me. You're going down" Richard Gravelle got over his reluctance and his fear of the police being involved and he took his wife and his family out of his house and he reported those threats to the Rockland OPP and I would ask you to ask yourselves why, why would he get over his fear as a result of one phone call from, or was it two?, phone calls in any case from Robert Stewart. Sylvie

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

Gravelle was his wife, she was no fading flower either, and yet the two of them decided to run, not walk, to the police station that day after the call from Robert Stewart, and the reason is, in my sub-mission to you, that the very night before, this was February the 1st that they went to the police station, and the very night before, January the 31st, they had helped Sylvie Gravelle's brother Denis Gaudreault pack up and disappear into the night to avoid the same man, and when they did that Denis Gau- dreault told Sylvie Gravelle that Robert Stew- art and Richard Mallory and others were involved in the Cumberland double homicide which had occurred two weeks before. That knowledge is what scared them out of their house, out of their comfort zone, and into that tape recorded interview with Detective Sergeant -- Detective, as she then was, Heather Lamarche. The timing is the critical thing. They knew on February the 1st and their source was Denis Gaudreault, their only source was Denis Gaudreault, and Denis Gaudreault on February the 1st was on the road, he was in transit to the west coast, he didn't know and he couldn't have known that Sylvie Gravelle and Richard Gravelle and their children and their families had been threatened. He didn't know that yet. He told them before the event which Ms. Mulligan says triggered his desire to fabricate this whole thing. Question to Richard Gravelle:

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

Q. All right. That trip from Denis' place to the in-laws' place and then home, during the trip in the car as you're leaving do you have any conversation with your wife Sylvie about what she's been discussing with Denis?

A. Yes, yes, a pretty loud conversation too.

Q. A pretty what conversation?

A. Pretty loud in my truck at that point. She said "Denis is in bigger trouble than you think he is. He's involved in the Cumberland murders and some other suicides.

"One big gang", that's what Denis told them. Hetold them Paulo Trudel, Denis Roy and the Cum- berland homicides were all connected, it's all one gang. Let's look at the membership in that gang.

Detective Lamarche testified that before Paulo Trudel was classed as a suicide the police were treating it as a suspicious death and they were looking at Richard Trudel and James Sauvé. Before Denis Roy was classed as a suicide the police were looking at Robert Stewart and Richard Mallory, that's who was being investigated. You recall that Denis Gaudreault told you that he didn't think that these were suicides, he thought they were murders, and there's some evidence that that was a popular view that was taken. The suspects in those murders as they were viewed on the street by people like Denis Gaudreault are who? Richard

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

Trudel, James Sauvé, Robert Stewart and Richard Mallory. That's your gang defined. All four of the people who are in this car indicated by Denis Gaudreault to his sister on the 31st of January in him saying it's all the same gang, Paulo Trudel, Denis Roy and the Cumberland homicides.

Richard Gravelle told you that he was scared when he got this information. He was asked and he said "a little bit scared, threatened, not threatened but saying holy shit, he's left me with that kind of mess, like in your mind you know it's not going to end there, something's gonna happen over it." Richard Gravelle knew that this had the potential to become something that he couldn't handle alone. They took it very very seriously. Remember that when Rob Stewart called again and said he was coming out there for Denis' address Richard and his friend Denis Cecire stayed up all night with loaded guns, waiting. They didn't put the coffee on, they weren't expecting a fireside chat. Those actions, the fact that they get loaded weapons and sit in their living room and wait all night, speak loudly to their level of fear which in itself, in my submission, tells you that they're being truthful when they say Denis Gaudreault told them the night of January the 31st about Robert Stewart and Cumberland on Denis' way out of town. It was knowing that Robert Stewart and Richard Mallory were capable of this that fuelled their fear.

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

Richard Gravelle and Sylvie Gravelle were so

frightened that they gave up the address in fact

where their infant niece was living. They gave up

Rhonda Nelson's Fort Saskatchewan address. Richard

Gravelle told you that wasn't easy but they did it

to protect their own children and themselves. What

was the effect of that? Richard Gravelle said all

it did was make Mr. Stewart angrier. Why? If you're

genuinely looking for a way to find Denis

Gaudreault, why do you get angrier when you get the

address? My submission is it's because there's no

more leverage, there's nothing else he can do to

get his hands on Sylvie, Sylvie's not bringing him

back, she's given the address. He's frustrated

because he doesn't have Denis and Denis is out of

control.

Richard Gravelle gave a great deal more information that corroborated Denis Gaudreault and Sylvie Gravelle too and again I'm just going to list some of this for you. He told you that Denis Gaudreault absolutely adored his daughter. He told you Gaudreault was extremely attached to his family as well, historically attached to his family, that Denis was always getting into trouble over the years and that he would leave the city but he always came back because he missed his family. He told you Denis hates witness protection. He told you Denis hates being considered a rat, as did Richard as I've already indicated. He told you Robert Stewart supplied Denis Gaudreault his

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

drugs. ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

He told you that Denis and Richard Gravelle freebased in Denis' place most nights with Ted Houston and Lorne Houston. He told you Lorne Houston was Denis' business partner, as Denis told you, and that matters because Denis says that Lorne Houston brought in the $7,000., all the fronts brought in when Denis had to come up with 10 thousand to pay Sauvé. Here's Richard confirming that Lorne Houston was Denis' partner in the business. The other people who were sharing in the drugs were Jamie Declare and Garrett Nelson, and Richard Gravelle tells you that Rob Bova, Little Rob as he was called, was also around all the time. You recall that Little Rob said that he was maybe in Denis' house one time, something like that. He definitely downplayed any association.

Richard Gravelle told you that it's possible to drive on freebase, that he did it all the time. He told you that Rhonda Nelson didn't like the drugs and she didn't like the lifestyle, she was upset by it all. Denis Gaudreault was a good fast driver. He told you the car that he and Denis had was worth, as he understood it, $9,000. to Robert Stewart and that's also signifi-cant, in my submission, because at that point recall that before Denis took the hash and left town his debt was approximately $13,000. If he has an asset worth nine thousand to the organization he could've turned that over and been within reach of the end of his debt, which suggests, and I submit to you, that

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

he left for a different reason, it wasn't just his debt that he was afraid of. He chose to run for another reason.

Richard told you that the coke from Denis Gau-dreault was free, they weren't paying for it, and neither were Jamie Declare or Denis. He said that Denis was in debt big time as a result. He said Robert Stewart would come around and he was angry and that Denis was afraid of him. He said that he was asked to store the .223 and he did. He said he was asked to store dynamite which he refused because he had children. He was asked to store cars which he didn't. He confirmed that Denis' race car was there.

He said he saw no violence from Denis Gau- dreault. He never saw Gaudreault the way he was on the 31st of January either. In 10 years of knowing Denis Gaudreault he'd never seen him that frightened. He said Denis was in a panic that night. He said Rhonda Nelson had been sent ahead with the baby, which was a big surprise to Richard because Denis didn't generally let that baby out of his sight; again, that speaks to Denis Gaudreault's level of fear. Garrett Nelson and his kids had been around but were gone the day that they left, before Denis and Garrett left.

He also told you that Denis Gaudreault gets car names mixed up. You recall that the car that he had was called a Chevy Vaga or a Pontiac Astra

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

I think, but Denis called it a Vaga Astra, and I mention that because there was a great deal made of the fact that Denis originally got the Cadillac model name wrong. Richard Gravelle tells you that Denis wasn't much of a mechanic, he wouldn't let him hold his wrench and that he got even the name of his own car confused, so that shouldn't cause you a great deal of trouble.

He said that cocaine left him more aware and ener-

gized. He said that Stewart's gun was stored in the

basement at Denis' house when it was at Denis'

house. He knew about Jamie's car being repossessed.

He told you that some of Denis' things went to

Wendy Bova's, for instance the baby stuff. You

recall that Wendy Bova-Bellefeuille denied that. He

confirmed that the hash Denis said he ripped from

Rob Stewart came from Rob Stewart and Denis was

planning to rip him and Denis did. He said that he

got 50 grams from that, I think. Denis had a

thirteen-thousand-dollar debt, that's what he told

us. He also told you that when Stewart came by

Richard and Sylvie's place that he was demanding

$25,000. from Richard and Sylvie, and he said that

it was for Gaudreault's mistakes. He told you that

debt collection is a staple in the hierarchy. He

told you that he had been aware of Robert Stewart

through his brother before he started sort of being

involved in the drug business with Denis, and he,

Richard, did

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

not want to become involved directly with Robert Stewart as a result of the information that he already had, he wanted to have Denis always between them because if he ever had a problem it would be Denis' problem, but then he also explained that if Denis couldn't deal with him in the event that he was unable to pay Denis, he understood and he knew that in the drug business it would then become Stewart's problem; that's how it worked. There is no absolute isolation of roles in this business. And he ultimately was cross-examined to establish, it seemed, that Richard Gravelle who had thought, as a result of having Denis between himself and Stewart, Richard Gravelle had thought he didn't owe Robert Stewart anything, and the cross-examination seemed to be designed to have him acknowledge that yes, actually he did. He was smoking Stewart's drugs, he knew it and he knew that Denis wasn't paying, so he did, plus there was that 50 grams that he got from Denis on his way out of town as partial payment for helping Denis move. The suggestion seems to be that Richard Gravelle owed Robert Stewart and therefore that he perhaps deserved to be threatened, that he was responsible for Denis' debt and the $25,000. and was therefore reasonably threatened the way that he was threatened by Robert Stewart. Perhaps a 25- thousand-dollar debt is reason enough at least to threaten to kill a man and his wife and their children and poison the dogs. Remember

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

that Richard collapsed under cross-examination here

by Mr. Crystal and he offered to pay Robert

Stewart. He said "Obviously I owe Rob for 50 grams

right now. Sorry." and he said "Give me your

address, Rob, I'll send it to you when this is

over." He broke down but what was the point? Is it

reasonable? Was it reasonable for Robert Stewart

and Richard Mallory to treat Gravelle and his wife

this way because Denis Gaudreault's debt was

supposed to come back on them? Is it reasonable to

terrify a family to the point where they arm

themselves in their own living room over someone

else's 25-thousand-dollar debt or your brother's

mistake? If it is reasonable to do that over your

brother's debt, then isn't it reasonable to murder

over dipping into cocaine that doesn't belong to

you and ruining 12 kilos in the process? Is that

where you were supposed to take that line of

reasoning? I'm not sure.

Sylvie Gravelle was the next witness. She testified to the same series of intimidating confrontations with Robert Stewart that her husband told you about, and then eventually with Richard Mallory as well. She said that she's still afraid and she gave you the sense of how all of this has affected her life and the life of her family and how she blamed her brother Denis Gaudreault for putting them in the position of being threatened with death over mistakes that he made. Sylvie's evidence, which corroborated Denis, I would submit,

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

wasADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

given honestly and in a straightforward fashion just as her husband's was. She revealed the anger and the bitterness that she felt for her brother. She made it clear that she neither used nor approved of drugs and that she had wanted it all out of her life but that this episode put it right back at her doorstep. It was obviously something she didn't want any part of and she was trying to escape it.

Much of her evidence was based on the two audiotaped interviews that she gave at the OPP in Rockland on the 1st and the 3rd of February of 1990, and then the several tapes that she made of telephone calls between herself and Denis Gaudreault from the west coast on the 5th, on the 7th and the 8th of February. Her evidence, like Richard's, is important fundamentally for timing, it shows what Denis Gau- dreault knew when and how much he knew when, so that it was all -- he had it all before he had a chance to create the huge fabrication that the defence would have you believe he created. I would ask you to review the transcripts of what Denis said to her, it's very very compelling evidence; if you review anything I would ask you to review that.

From Sylvie we know that already when she went to the police on the 1st of February she told them that she had been threatened by people who were involved with other murders and that the Cumberland was one of the murders these people

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

were involved with, that's why Heather Lamarche,

one of the lead homicide investigators, was called

in from home to deal with Richard and Sylvie about

their threatening allegations. You recall

Morrissette thought they might be connected. Sylvie

said Denis had told her to get herself some

protection. She said that Robert Stewart didn't get

his hands dirty, that he hired people to do it and

that she had gotten that information from Denis.

Denis told her that if there were any problems she

should go to the police with some information that

he had written down on a piece of paper for her and

that he gave her on the 31st of January in his

living room. On that piece of paper were phone

numbers and names and pager numbers, models of

cars, addresses, things like that, and Sylvie gave

that information to the police she said. Denis told

her that if something happened to him or if they

got any threats she should give that paper to the

police who would know what to do with it and he

told her that it would connect "them" to the

Cumberland matter. He said Richard Mallory and

Robert Stewart and other guys have committed

murder. So Sylvie went to the police the very day

of the threat without waiting to see if anything

would happen because she'd been warned only the

night before of what this gang were capable of. She

said that Denis told her they were involved in five

murders: (1) Denis Roy, (2) Paulo Trudel and the

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

other three being theADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

Cumberland murders - the woman, the baby and the man. Denis told her that Rob Stewart - I've covered that already - wouldn't get his hands dirty, he paid people to do that. That's significant of course because it's like déjà vu, isn't it? It is a reflection of what happened on the 16th. He's telling her Stewart doesn't get his hands dirty, he has people that he hires for that, and ultimately what he informs you of as to what happened on the 16th is that Stewart didn't even go in, he didn't get his hands dirty, he hired people to do it, he paid for it.

On the 31st was the first time that Denis had ever mentioned murders to Sylvie, she said. She said he was "drastically scared", those were her words. She, like Richard, had never seen him like that before. She'd seen him lots of times in and around the time period when he was doing rips and she'd never seen him this scared. The pattern of his existence, as I said, had been that he would do rips and take off and then he'd come back, that's just what he did, and this time she said he was different. He told her on the 31st that he was ripping Stewart for drugs and for money as well for a total of $23,000. and he said it was too late to work it out. He said she should get some protection and Stewart was involved in murder. She told you that she and Richard helped him pack up, it was a last minute move, she wasn't expecting it. She con-firmed what

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

Richard told you and what Denis told you that Rhonda and Ashley had gone ahead, and it was also significant to her that the baby was out of Denis' sight. She told that they had left at 6:00 o'clock that morning. She also said Garrett's wife and kids left earlier that afternoon. She said Denis wouldn't normally be apart from the baby at all. They stored Denis' stuff at Wendy's and they took some away with them. She told you when she tried to retrieve that stuff later from Wendy Bova that there was some hostility between them and Wendy refused to give it to her, something about Denis owing Wendy for long distance phone bills or some-thing. Ultimately Wendy kept Denis' television. Sylvie and Richard got the dog Shadow.

The next day they had the first series of threatening phone calls. Sylvie told you she'd been warned by Wendy Bova, as we've already discussed, to expect a call. After that series of calls they went to the police. As far as Sylvie was concerned at that point, she said, Denis was not her brother, she had no respect for him, she was going to get him back. She was hysterical and upset and crying.

The following day, which is the Friday, the 2nd of February, Denis calls her at work and says that she can tell the police that she has a witness. Robert Stewart also called that day to say that he was coming down to her place, and it was as a result of Robert Stewart calling

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

that day that they sit up all night waiting for Stewart to come, with loaded weapons. Saturday the 3rd after 10:00 o'clock in the morning they showed up. There was a hang-up call first and then they showed up in a red pickup truck. She told you that Mallory came in and leaned on the doorway and she interpreted that gesture as saying to her that no one was going to leave. Stewart told them that "when you're in this kind of business, when somebody runs the family pays" and this is when he told her four guys - again that interesting number - four guys from Montreal were coming down and she was going to be eliminated. They were told that the rest of their family and the dogs were also included in the threats and they had to pay for Denis' mistake, that's when Sylvie gave them the Lipton Soup paper with the address on it that was found in the car with Rhonda's Fort Saskat- chewan address on it. Sylvie told you that she was hoping to get her own family out of the loop by doing that. When she gave that over Stewart said it was too late, it was out of his hands, they were still going to go down. She took that threat seriously too because of the fear that she'd seen in her brother on the 31st and because of what he had told her and she went directly back to the Ontario Provincial Police. Recall that no charges were ultimately laid. It's not that the police refused to lay charges, it's that without a promise that these people would be kept in custody Sylvie and

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

Richard didn't want any charges laid, they didn't

want Stewart or Mallory to find out that they'd

even been to the police. It was after that visit on

the 3rd of February that she got her 24-hour police

protection and Stewart never came back.

By February the 3rd Sylvie hated Denis Gau- dreault and she saw him as the only solution to their problem, she wanted him to speak to the police. On the 4th she spoke to Rhonda Nelson from out West and found out about the baby having been threatened with kidnapping. She told Denis about that and she told Denis that Pierre, their other brother, had also been threatened. She told Denis that he had no more family and that Robert Stewart was going to find Ashley and take her. She told him they couldn't take it anymore and that it was his fault. She put enormous pressure on Denis to come forward and much of that is recorded on the tapes. Again, as I said, you should review them in detail. Suffice it to say for now that there are a few things that were very significant on those tapes that Denis didn't know she was making, by the way. He may have suspected it but he didn't know it and he certainly didn't know it early on. And on that tape Denis tells his sister "The only witness they have is me, they won't get any others." When she asks is it the Denis Roy or the Paulo Trudel he says "No", and of course the only other one he mentioned is the Cumberland.

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

He said that he doesn't want to be arrested and

brought back as a witness. That's significant

because where does fear of being arrested and

brought back as a witness come from in a fabricated

story? It's a clear awareness of the role that he's

had to play in this, that he was a witness. You

don't get arrested for being a witness if, for

instance, your only information comes as a

confession for instance. Denis knew that he drove

and it was his consciousness of that and the fear

that he had been discovered as someone who drove

making him a witness that makes him say on this

tape he doesn't want to be arrested and brought

back as a witness. That's significant. He revealed

in these tapes as well that his plan is to just

give a little bit of information to the police and

let them take it from there. This is not a march

towards getting himself involved as a witness, it's

quite the contrary, from the beginning. He

indicates on the tapes "They eliminated the guy

once in the body, once in the head, they shot her

in the head. Heard the television in the room." He

says he was there. "I'm the one that that" and he

never finishes that sentence.

Denis Gaudreault was definitely pressured by his sister Sylvie. He didn't want to go to the police and he didn't want Sylvie to be involved and he didn't want to be a witness, and he didn't want himself or any member of his family involved in

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

this, not his siblings, his girlfriend, his parents and mostly not his daugh-

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

ter. Denis Gaudreault by this point when he's talk-ing to Sylvie on the phone is gone from Ottawa, he's safe enough, he's doing his own thing in B.C. but the pressure he was under, the pressure that his family was under didn't cause him to fabricate; it caused him to end his old life and try to begin a new one. His old lifestyle and his place in the world that he knew, the only world he knew, the world that he lived in which was the criminal world, were lost to him from the point at which he decided to cooperate with the police. Denis Gaudreault is always going to live looking over his shoulder, he told you that. He gave up a lot but you saw him testify, he's obviously alive and well. He might be just a little bit changed by this process. Denis Gaudreault did not do what he did for himself; he did it, in my submission, for several of the people who were closest to him. He may never be hit, he may never be taken out, he may never be killed but he will always be on guard and apprehensive and sometimes afraid, and that's what he lives with now. He gave up a lot and I'm asking you to please not forget that because Denis can't forget it. Obviously if Denis Gaudreault can't go back entirely into a life of crime that's not a bad thing, it's not something for us to lament on his behalf, but Denis Gaudreault can't go home, he can't even go home, he can't come back to Ottawa or to his family or to anything that he knew. It's not a bad thing for Denis Gaudreault

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

to have to be a productive member of society and I'm not saying that it is but from his perspective, which is the one that matters when you're trying to determine whether he has been motivated to fabricate for this benefit that's held out, from his perspective he has given up his family on his own behalf and also on behalf of his daughter. He told you that Christmas and other family holidays are now spent with just himself and his wife and his child. Denis Gau-dreault is one of seven children, he has a large extended family. Family holidays now are three people. His father is ill, he can't be there. His daughter barely knows her cousins, never mind her last name which changes. He told you that the people that his daughter referred to as "uncle" were his Witness Protection handlers. Denis has been watched and reported on and irritated and he felt abused by all of the Witness Protection people he dealt with over the years, and he can't go home.

Whether you or I or anyone else think that he ought to be happy and appreciative of the changes in his life, the fact is, and the evidence is, that Denis Gaudreault has spent 10 years in what he would describe as a personal hell. His sister described it that way and his brother-in-law did too. He doesn't like his life, "he's alone", that's Sylvie's words "he's alone". If things could be turned around, she told you, he would turn them around. Richard Gravelle to Mr. McKechnie had this exchange:

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

Q. But in any event Mr. Gaudreault I take it told you in the past, though, what it's like living on Witness Protection.

And Richard said:A. He doesn't have to tell me that. I see

it. I witnessed it.

Q. When you see it what do you see?

A. He's not a happy man. He's not a happy

man. He's got no more life.Should he be grateful? My submission is that's

irrelevant to whether he was motivated by this to

lie. You have to consider whether it's worth lying

from his perspective, from inside his mind, and,

again, examine the motivations of all of the

witnesses, please. I'm not asking you on behalf of

the Crown to like Denis Gau- dreault or any other

witness you heard from. I'm not even asking you

to believe any one of them independent of another

one if you prefer not to or if you have a problem

with any witness or any part of one witness, but I

do ask that you not disbelieve someone based on

lifestyle or their behaviour or what they represent

or any personal likes or dislikes that you may have

for them. Lots of them aren't very nice, lots of

them aren't terribly likable, but that doesn't

affect the content of their evidence. Consider

their evidence, link it to the evidence of others.

Link is a bad analogy. This isn't a chain, it's not

a chain where a single weak link can break, it's a

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

cable where the strands wrap together and

eventually give you

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

something strong enough to bind these two to jus-tice. Consider the evidence of the witnesses bound together with the rest of the evidence of the other witnesses, most of whom haven't associated with each other or seen each other or spoken to each other in a decade and many of whom didn't know each other at all, yet they came to this courtroom, they overcame or at least dealt with great personal fear and at great personal costs, and some nine to 10 years after these planned and deliberate murders they came and told you what they know. Examine the so-called benefits that the defence would have you believe were so irresistible as to entice them to testify in what is no doubt the most significant human event of their lives and then not testify truthfully but to manufacture, fabricate and bear false witness against these two men behind me. What were the carrots used to lure these witnesses to do that, to lie under oath in two first degree murder charges? What were the advantages that were so great and so valuable to the witnesses personally that the defence deem it worthy of these lies? Witness Protection, is that it? You get to leave your neighbourhood, you get to leave your city, stay away from your family and friends, you get to have conditions imposed on your behaviour, you have to sign a contract that covers almost every aspect of your life even though you're an adult and if you breach it you find yourself back out on your own with your

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

fears in a world that may be hostile and that you

might not want to be in. In exchange for becoming a

witness you get to live in fear for yourself and

your family, you must hide for as long as the

authorities deem it necessary. No. Denis Gaudreault

did not come forward because he wanted to live

dangerously or look straight into the eyes of that

world and tempt it. He didn't do it because he

wants to spend the rest of his life looking over

his shoulder. The Witness Protection Program and

its benefits are not close to anything you could

equate with motive to fabricate evidence. The only

benefit is protection, that's what it's there for.

There's no doubt that Mr. Gaudreault lied to the

police and he lied to the police often; that speaks

to whether he was a police plant, doesn't it?, and

whether this is a massive conspiracy. Denis

Gaudreault's whole approach was to stay out of it,

he wanted to give enough information to not get

involved, so it wasn't until May that he even

admitted that he drove and that meant necessarily

and logically that for four months he had to lie

about how he knew what he knew, he had to say he

was told things that he actually observed first-

hand. So don't be swayed by a count of the number

of lies that was told over four months. It makes no

difference how many times the word is repeated,

those lies, those first four months of lies were

for a purpose, it had to be that way if he was

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

going to keep himself out of it. And Denis hadADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

the same enormous distrust of the police that you saw in Randy Wara and Richard Mallory on the stand, that's where he used to live in that world, and when you live on that side of the law for so long, as Denis did, you don't change overnight. I submit to you that the reflexes are engrained, you just don't cooperate with the police anymore than you have to. Denis never did and he still doesn't.

The defence would like you to doubt the integrity of this most extensive police investigation. The defence wants you to doubt the honesty or the intelligence or the competence of the police officers whose work as a result of these brutal deaths at the hands of Mr. Mallory and Mr. Stewart and two others brought us all together into this courtroom and incredibly, in my respectful submission, they're asking you to conclude that every central witness conspired to convict these men who stand charged before you. The most amazing thing of all is it was pulled off, wasn't it? Not one person cracked under the pressure of cross-examination in this proceeding and the others you've heard about. Not one person in this cast of characters decided to turn on the other co-conspirators in 10 years. The defence called no evidence to support impropriety in this investigation on the part of any of the officers involved; that's because there was none, in my submission, despite the invitation Ms. Mulligan proffered in her opening for you to find it.

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

Not a shred.

It may be easier to judge the police and the expert

witnesses on the stand, you can use the standards

of honesty and integrity that you gave through your

lives and your own experiences. There's no room to

move, there's nothing to doubt in the evidence of

those witnesses, in my submission, absolutely

nothing. You saw and heard from them for days, you

heard their evidence, the manner in which it was

delivered, more importantly how it was

independently supported and you can judge that

evidence. It may be more difficult, however, to

judge the other people you heard testifying here

because their lives for many of you, I would

submit, is probably an enigma, it may not make

sense to us. When Denis Gaudreault appears to be

laughing at some of the untruths that he's told

over the years, things which were not relevant to

the critical issues in this case, the critical

issue being that he was warned that an example

would be set and that he drove these four accused

that you've heard about to and from the murder

scene with firearms and that he was later told what

happened was ultimately threatened as was his

family, you can believe Denis Gaudreault about

that, but rationalize his behaviour in court

through his own eyes if you would. He never once

varied on the critical evidence that he provided

you with. Why he lied about seemingly unimportant

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

things to him is difficult to appreciate but that's

part of

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

Denis Gaudreault's subjective logic, that's just

who he is. His failure to understand the

significance of insignificant lies doesn't mean

that he's being untruthful about what he told you

about January the 16th, it can't change the fact

that these people died, so rely on his critical

evidence, the core issue that is before this Court,

that these two men along with two others killed two

human beings in their own home, but for your own

peace of mind support what he says about the

murders with all of the other evidence.

For the past 15 months you've been exposed to and asked to sit in judgment of a small but very real part of society. It's like, no doubt, not as you've experienced it, maybe even not as you could've imagined it but it is real. It's a world, in my submission, where the law means very little unless you get caught by the police or unless the only people who could harm you cooperate with the police. It's a world where a code exists and death can result for violating that code, that's the street code of silence, you heard about that, and it's a world where a young couple unfortunately can be executed to maintain power and position by making the weak an example to others who might entertain the folly of considering a violation of that code. Because Manon Bourdeau threatened to breach the silence and to break the code, the code that Denis Gaudreault and Randy Wara and Richard Mallory and John Andrews and Robert Stewart and

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

Richard Trudel and James Sauvé all understood only

too well. Fortunately Denis Gaudreault had the

courage to turn his back on that code. If he hadn't

had that courage would we have even have had the

option of determining the guilt of these two men or

would the world of the strong have continued to

flourish? In my most respectful submission you know

the answer to that and because Mr. Giroux had the

audacity to ignore the rules of the street and

Manon Bourdeau had that audacity too, they lost

sight of their own weakness and the danger that

they faced and they finally died for that.

When you hear Denis Gaudreault tell you how frightened he was and how concerned he was for his family, believe it. When the witnesses tell you why they chose to break the silence demand- ed in their world, believe them. When it's said that if it were not for the murder that could not be justified even in their world, as some people like John Smallwood told you, believe it. When other witnesses told you that if it weren't for threats to their children or their sisters or their wives or their husbands or their parents, believe it. When you're told that the image of the pregnant woman begging for her life was a more powerful motivator than fear, believe it. And when they collectively and independently tell you that these two men, Robert Stewart and Richard Mallory, committed these murders, believe it; believe it because

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

there can't be any other reasonable conclusion. I

am respectfully and humbly asking you to consider

all of the evidence carefully and to find Robert

Stewart and Richard Mallory guilty of first degree

murder, two counts each, and I thank you for your

time and your attention and your great patience.

THE COURT: All right, members of the jury, that

concludes the submissions of counsel and as I indi-

cated to you I wouldn't break up my charge to allow

you to have the weekend off and I think the Court

Reporter still needs some repair work and some R&R,

so for those reasons I think we'll start on Monday

as originally suggested, so we'll see you all

bright and early on Monday morning at 10:00

o'clock.

--- Whereupon the jury retired at 3:00 p.m.

ADDRESS TO THE JURY

(Bair)

23146

--- In the absence of the jury

THE COURT: Do you people want to take 10 minutes

now? All right.

--- Whereupon court recessed at 3:02 p.m.

* * * * * * * *

--- Upon resuming at 3:20 p.m. --- Accused present

THE COURT: Yes, Ms. Mulligan.MS. MULLIGAN: Your Honour, it'll be my request and my submission that we either deal with these matters, as I said, either tomorrow or early on Monday morning. What I propose to deal with, so that Your Honour understands why I make this submission, is that I would propose to deal with matters, going through my notes that I noted down, and I would submit were either improper or inflam-matory remarks of the Crown in places where the evidence was not reviewed fairly or matters that were not in evidence that were put to the jury, places where there has been an invitation to misuse the evidence, in my submission, and matters that have arisen that merit a reply by the defence. All of that means that I will have to go back to the transcripts of the evidence that has been heard during the trial and I know Your Honour made the comment, and it's true, that at one time we could all just say what our recollections of the evidence was but it also was true I think at one time trials weren't really


23152

15 months long usually and for me to start saying ---THE COURT: I'll say Amen to that.MS. MULLIGAN: --- for me to stand here now at the end of this, at the end of this long day, and try to tell you what I think the evidence was in October of '98 and have Ms. Bair stand up no doubt and say 'No it wasn't' or Mr. Dandyk or Mr. Cooper, or any number of people on that side of the world, isn't going to be very productive. I think it would be far more productive if I were to have the opportunity, overnight at least, to put together something maybe in writing and comparing what was said with what the evidence was to give Your Honour a summary, and everyone a summary, and a basis to work from. I can begin but I've got four pads of notes here and I will be going page by page looking for the note and telling Your Honour what I think the evidence was as opposed to what the note says. It seems to me it is more productive to do it after I've had an opportunity to review it properly and to put it properly before Your Honour in a more condensed and appropriate format. I don't want to be in the position of saying Ms. Bair misstated the evidence and then coming in on Monday and saying 'Oops, I guess she didn't.' I'd rather be able to ensure that my submissions are accurate and appropriate. I have no difficulty with tomorrow, I don't think anyone else is really thrilled with the idea, I have no difficulty


23152

with early Monday morning, but whenever it happens I do have to make the submissions and I just don't think that I'm in a position to make them properly and in my client's best interest at this point today, Ms. Bair having just finished.THE COURT: Mr. McKechnie?MR. McKECHNIE: I'm prepared either tomorrow or

Monday. There are a number of points that we have

isolated as well. There's several that I have to

look up on the transcript as well, mostly with the

transcript of Mr. Mallory's recent evidence which I

have at home.

The other matter as well that I'd be wanting to participate in is the suggested verdicts. I don't know whether my friend -- it may well be that my friend agrees with me that at least number 5 is not a correct statement of the law and ---THE COURT: All right.MR. McKECHNIE: --- but that may be a question that we're in agreement on, I'm not sure.THE COURT: You mean the possible verdicts mate-rial I gave you?MR. McKECHNIE: Yes. Yes.THE COURT: All right.MR. DANDYK: I haven't read this yet, Your Honour, obviously.THE COURT: Well there's no big rush about that. I'll tell you why, because this won't be given 'til Wednesday in any event ---MR. DANDYK: Fine. Thank you.


23152

THE COURT: --- of next week. MR. DANDYK: I'd like an opportunity. Thank you. THE COURT: I'm not quite sure whether this is really possible verdicts or really the decisional tree analysis, you know?, this is what I'm trying to do and it's partly as a suggestion of Ms. Mulligan and I put it in a little more, well, esoterically legal language, let's call it that, I don't know that it's really too much different except in one place and I suspect I got it wrong anyway according to other defence counsel so there we go. But, anyway, we can deal with that down the road, there will be time. The real issue now is does the Crown have any views on this matter?

MS. BAIR: I can't add anything useful, Your Honour,

given that I don't know what the factual issues are

that they have a problem with so I can't say

whether we have easy access to the answer or not. In terms of timing obviously we're in the Court's hands and I'm just as happy to go and have a glass of wine and go to sleep myself right now as anything else but whatever, whatever meets with everyone else's favour I'll be there. I'm ridiculously agreeable right now.

THE COURT: All right. Well, the real problem I have is I don't want to be blown out of the water with the jury, we've already compromised the Court's credibility, and I'd be compromising more I suspect if


23152

on Monday we get into one of our arguments that won't last long and all of a sudden it's a day or a day and a half or something like that. No one is obviously in any mood to do it today and if we do it tomorrow the Court Reporter will come armed to court and shoot us all. So there we are, those are the choices.MS. BAIR: How about relatively early early on Monday?THE COURT: Yeah, I certainly have to start it Monday, I have to start to charge, maybe I could push it back an hour or something, that sort of thing.

Well, I suppose as far as the remedy, the judicial remedy which counsel has alluded to, perhaps I could do something in my charge or something is one possibility. I would like to have some time to incorporate that into the picture and so on.MS. BAIR: Well I don't think that should cause any trouble, Your Honour. There won't be any changes.THE COURT: No, no, no. I think maybe what I'll do is I'll avoid instant death tomorrow and go to 9:00 o'clock on Monday and if I have to push the jury back a little bit I will and if we don't get to the end - this is not an invitation to carry on - we'll go to Tuesday. What else can I do? And I'll go with the jury, say, with a cutoff point at 11:00 o'clock I'm going to start with the jury no matter whether we conclude or not.


23152

MS. MULLIGAN: As I said, Your Honour, I'll do what I can to have it in writing so that it's there and easier to ---THE COURT: Compressed.MS. MULLIGAN: I can read it as quickly as Ms. Bair reads and you'll have it.

THE COURT: All right. So that's what we'll do then,

we'll start at 9:00 Monday and the jury will

definitely be coming in at 11:00 and we'll have

some backup in the next two days if it's absolutely

essential. Okay. So be it.--- Whereupon, at 3:30 o'clock p.m. court was adjourned to

reconvene at 9:00 o'clock a.m., Monday, January 17th, 2000

* * * * * * * *

Certified correct to thebest of my skill and ability

________________________________Gloria D. Neville, C.S.R.Chartered Shorthand ReporterSuperior Court of Justice


23152

kangaroojustice.org€¦ · web view- upon commencing at 10:05 a.m. accused present. the...

Documents