kangaroojustice.org€¦ · web view--- upon commencing at 10:18 a.m.--- accused present--- in...

MONDAY, MARCH 29, 1999

--- Upon commencing at 10:18 a.m.--- Accused present--- In the absence of the jury

MS. MULLIGAN: I don't know who wants to speak first. Did you want to speak?MS. BAIR: No, we'll sit down.MR. COOPER: I'll stand.THE COURT: Oh yes, for the usual reasons.MS. MULLIGAN: Good morning, Your Honour.THE COURT: Good morning. Good morning.MS. MULLIGAN: Two things to raise at the outset. The defence was given, I guess, a will say of Sergeant Pierre Perron, who I understand is the next witness. There are eight points on it, only four of which, in my submission, are proper testimony, and I don't know whether the Crown intended to lead all of these or just include it as part of the will say. It would be my submission that - I don't know whether - it's Sergeant Perron - could testify that he was part of the interview with Michael Winn. This is about the placement form.THE COURT: Oh yes.MS. MULLIGAN: Whether it was a placement form or a calendar; Mr. Winn, of course, having testified that he thought: oh, well, that must have been the placement form that he was referring to. I think Pierre Perron is here to

(In the absence of the jury)

10224.

say it wasn't. So he can testify to that, that he was interviewing him, that he interviewed him and recorded it on videotape, that the paper in front of Michael Winn was a calendar, and that he didn't provide a placement document to Michael Winn. The rest of the evidence relates to Michael Vanasse's notoriety and reputation which, in my submission, his notoriety, reputation and propensity is not relevant or admissible; intelligence information, how important and wonderful it is, and Project Octopus, which has nothing to do with my client and this case; so the last four. I'm in agreement that he can testify to the first four. I don't know if my friend has comments on that or not.MS. BAIR: Well, I do. I had forgotten that I even prepared that will state. I'm just glad to see that you had something from me. It's a great relief. First of all, Your Honour, Project Octopus has something to do with this matter because my friend chose to lead the interview related specifically to Project Octopus. That's what it has to do with it. That is an interview of Nick Franco. It was one of the Project Octopus murders, and in terms of qualifying this witness, I intend to ask him whether he's a member of the RCMP, where he's been working, and that I understand he worked in Project Octopus, how long he worked with it, what it was, to explain this videotape, and generalized introductory questions to assist us


10224.

in introducing Michael Winn in the context in which this witness came to know him. I do not intend to ask him about Michael Vanasse. In fact, having seen this will state, I had forgotten that he even knew Michael Vanasse. But no, that's not part of what I anticipate, and the rest is related to the video. It's exactly what I would do with any witness. It's a question of introduction and qualification.MS. MULLIGAN: My concern lies more that we don't get into a whole rendition of how wonderful, helpful and reliable Mr. Winn was on another matter in Project Octopus or Nick Franco; that that is irrelevant. I think Your Honour even mentioned that to the jury at the time.MS. BAIR: It doesn't say that on the will say, how reliable he was, does it?MS. MULLIGAN: No, but I'm concerned, based on the outline that I've been given, that if we're going into Project Octopus and Nick Franco and all those things, my concern arises from that. If my friend is not going there, that's fine. That's why I raised it.MS. BAIR: I never even thought of it, but I'll see if I can squeeze it in.THE COURT: Yes, now that you've been alerted.MS. MULLIGAN: With respect to one other matter, I've been given in disclosure a notice of intention of sorts. I've never seen a notice quite like it. It says: "Section 667 of the Criminal Code." It's been given to me in


10224.

disclosure. I can pass it to Your Honour with the material stapled to it. I don't know what it means. I just want to - often I'm criticized for not reading these things or having had them when I should've known better and things like that, and I have no idea what it's about. Appendix A - the bottom line is: "Take notice that it is intended to produce in evidence against you, to wit" - there's nothing there - and then it says: "Without limiting to the following, see Appendix A attached", and what's attached is some of Detective Ralko's notes. So I don't know what it's all about. Just so Your Honour is aware, that I have looked at it, when it comes to be raised.THE COURT: Well now I'll have to read 667.MS. MULLIGAN: I think it's the section....MS. BAIR: Well, you know, these things are probably best discussed with people off the record. There is no need to make this an issue in court. None of us, at this point, knows exactly what my friend is talking about so we're not in a position to assist her, but maybe you could show the document to us and we might be able to tell you what it's about.THE COURT: All right.MS. BAIR: I certainly didn't prepare it so I can't, but there are others....THE COURT: Well, anyway, if notice is required, notice has been given, and....MS. MULLIGAN: But there's nothing attached to it, so I'm not agreeing the notice....


10224.

THE COURT: Oh, I see.MS. MULLIGAN: I just wanted to raise it because I've been criticized in the past for not being aware of things like that, and I am aware but I just don't know what it means.THE COURT: All right.MS. MULLIGAN: I think that's it.THE COURT: Then bring in the witness and the jury, I guess.MS. BAIR: No, not just yet.THE COURT: Not just yet?MS. BAIR: Mr. Cooper has something.MR. COOPER: Yes, Your Honour, there's something that came to our attention during the - during the last week. We're trying to avert a horrible injustice here with the scheduling. For the May break, the week out of court, we had scheduled the week in which....MS. BAIR: The May long weekend.MR. COOPER: The May long weekend. Notwithstanding that it's on - the 24th of May is a Monday - the holiday this year is on the 17th, and that is the week that we scheduled out, and the reason that we were interested in that, from the Crown's perspective, is that every year, the Crown Attorneys have their conference at the same time as the Provincial Court Judges, and every year since I've been a Crown Attorney, it's been in that week. This year, they raised it a week and didn't tell anybody until after the fact - I shouldn't say didn't tell anybody - my phone didn't ring.


10224.

We've just become aware of this, and in fact the spring conference is the week of the 11th. Well, that's a Tuesday. The 11th to the 14th of May, rather than the 18th to the 21st, as we had every reason to believe. So we're asking everyone if they - not right now - we don't need to resolve this now - but this is our first opportunity to bring it to anyone's attention. If everyone could look into that and maybe we can discuss it later.THE COURT: All right....Discussion continues regarding scheduling THE COURT: Yes. Bring in the jury, please.

**********


10224.

--- Upon resuming in the presence of the jury at 10:25 a.m.

...JURY ENTERS (10:25 a.m.)

CLERK OF THE COURT: Counsel satisfied that all members of the jury are present?MS. BAIR: Yes, thank you.MR. MORRIS: Yes, thank you.THE COURT: Members of the jury, welcome back. You all look very refreshed, and that's good. We have a new Reporter this morning, Ms. Olson. Mrs. Neville is taking another week or perhaps two off, and then I think she will be back, but we'll see. Carry on, Madam Crown.MS. BAIR: Thank you, Your Honour.MS. MULLIGAN: Just before Madam Crown starts, I know they look refreshed but I understand they were the clan Mulligan, and I'm sorry that I missed that. I did peer through the window.THE COURT: Clan Mulligan.MS. BAIR: Clan Mulligan. I don't get it, is it an Irish joke?THE COURT: I don't know.MS. BAIR: Or a Calgary joke?THE COURT: Calgary joke.JURY MEMBER: Green. Green. Green.MS. BAIR: I know, I was just....THE COURT: Okay.MS. BAIR: Try and keep up. Sergeant Pierre Perron, please.

(In the presence of the jury)

10230.

SERGE ANDRÉ PIERRE PERRON: SWORN

EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MS. BAIR:Q. Good morning.A. Good morning.Q. Sergeant Perron, I understand that you are a

member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is that correct?A. Yes, and have been so for 17 years.Q. 17 years. And your current rank, sir, is

Sergeant?A. Sergeant.Q. I also understand that you are anticipating a

promotion to Staff Sergeant in the near future.A. Yes.Q. But as you said to me this morning, those

things are never for sure until they happen.A. That's right.Q. Okay, but you have reason to anticipate it.A. Yes.Q. Okay. Where are you working at this point,

sir? What's your responsibility?A. I'm currently affected to the human resources

management office for the central region, which is comprised of Ontario and Quebec. I'm responsible to handle the career of 650 regular RCMP officers.

Q. Throughout both provinces.A. Yes.Q. And you are fluently bilingual, sir?A. Yes.Q. I also understand that you have worked in a

number of other areas within the RCMP over the years?A. Yes.

S.A.P. Perron - in-Ch.

(Bair)

10231.

Q. And one of your areas has been organized crime?

A. Yes.Q. Can you tell us how you define that? What is

organized crime?A. Organized crime, I would define as a group of

individual (sic) involved in criminal activities for the purpose of benefitting financially for - from those criminal activities.

Q. And in relation to your knowledge of organized crime, sir, I understand that you were involved in what was known as Project Octopus.

A. Yes, I was.Q. In this region.A. Yes.Q. When was your involvement in Project Octopus?A. I was seconded to Octopus Project around

November 3, 1991, for a period of two years, all the way up to August 1993.

Q. Okay, now, Sergeant Perron's evidence, for the benefit of the jury, reflects back to the very beginning of the trial. This is in relation to the evidence of one Michael Winn and his involvement in Project Octopus, is that correct?

A. That's correct.Q. Project Octopus, I understand, sir, ended up

dealing with eight first degree murder charges, two conspiracies, and 150 other assorted criminal charges.

A. That is correct.Q. Was it a drug-related investigation?A. It was a homicide investigation which had

narcotics involvement.


(Bair)

10231.

Q. Okay. And was it an RCMP investigation?A. No, the main investigation was comprised of

the Ottawa Police, and at their request, a joint forces operation project was formed, including several police forces of the area.

Q. Why joint forces?A. Joint forces because of the complexity of the

investigation and the fact that the criminal elements do not abide by provincial, international or municipal jurisdiction. It makes it more efficient and more economic to involve a project of different police forces.

Q. And is joint forces a common way to proceed with drug related or organized crime matters?

A. It's a way of proceeding for serious criminal activities involving a wide area of jurisdictions.

Q. What is it that the RCMP was seen to contribute to this investigation?

A. The first part of the investigation, the RCMP was asked to provide an experienced investigator - as a matter of fact, there were two at the initial onset of the investigation - to answer the intelligence and the resources that the RCMP has in this capacity.

Q. And you say "intelligence". Is there a particular international aspect to RCMP intelligence?

A. Well, this aspect was comprised of the Italian organized - based organized crime investigation, along with major importation of narcotics.

Q. And you just mentioned Italian. Project Octopus is related to Italian crime or Italian people or Italian what?

A. Italian-based organized crime.Q. Okay. And they in fact became known as the


(Bair)

10231.

"Little Italy murders", is that correct?A. That is correct.Q. Now, you were contacted some time ago in

relation to this case and this trial, and we've been waiting until your schedule and ours made us available at the same time, is that right?

A. Yes.Q. I understand, sir, that you do know Michael

Winn?A. Yes.Q. And you know him through Project Octopus?A. That's correct.Q. I also understand, sir, that you were

involved in an interview of Michael Winn.A. Yes, I was involved in actually a pre-

interview of Mr. Winn as well.Q. Okay. The interview that followed your pre-

interview was January the 16th of 1992, is that correct?A. That is correct.Q. It was you and who?A. Sergeant Claude Couture of the Ottawa Police,

who is now retired.Q. And it was in relation to what, this

interview?A. It was in relation to the two first homicides

of Lenny - Lenny Rousseau and Joe D'Angelo.Q. And who were you interviewing?A. Mr. Michael Winn.Q. And did you have a suspect or someone that

you were asking Mr. Winn about?A. We were asking questions about Mr. Lenny

Rousseau.


(Bair)

10231.

Q. He's the dead person.A. Oh, sorry, Nick Franco.Q. Okay. Was he accused, at that point, or do

you remember?A. Yes, he was.Q. Okay. Do you have notes of your involvement,

sir?A. Yes.Q. And was a videotape made?A. Yes.Q. Have you reviewed the videotape?A. Yes, I have.Q. Did you provide for Michael Winn during that

interview, sir, a placement document from the Regional Detention Centre?

A. No.Q. Did you provide for Mr. Winn a placement

document from the Regional Detention Centre before or after the interview?

A. No.Q. Or ever?A. No.Q. Is that anything that you would ever do?A. No.Q. Particularly in the circumstances of a case

such as this, where you have Mr. Winn giving you information concerning conversations he said he had with Nick Franco in custody, in those circumstances, would you ever provide a Regional Detention Centre placement document to such a potential witness?

A. No.Q. Can you explain to the jury why you would


(Bair)

10231.

not, sir?A. In a case involving a witness or an informant

such as Michael Winn who has, you know, been involved in criminal activities, we need all the corroboration we can get, and a placement document would be used for - for this purpose, to confirm that, yes, he was where he said he was, with who he said he was, and which people he would have contact with in the - for example, the Regional Detention Centre.

Q. So you wouldn't give him away - you wouldn't give away your corroborative evidence.

A. No.Q. Did you need to review the videotape, sir, to

know that you had not provided him with a placement document?A. No.Q. I'm going to make some reference to the

video, sir. At this point, I'd like to refer back to the transcript of October the 7th of 1998 when Ms. Mulligan was cross-examining Michael Winn when he was here testifying in this matter, and she played a portion of the video for the jury, which I'm going to play back. She introduced it at page 242 of the transcript with these words: Question at line eight:

"You gave a statement to officer. ...PauseThis statement where you sort of told them all you knew about your involvement in certain cases.Answer: Right.Question: That was January the 16th, 1992?Answer: It could be.Question: All right. I'm not going to


(Bair)

10231.

play the whole video. It's long, right? Do you remember the video? It's a statement you gave to these officers.Answer: Well, I remember giving them a video, yes.Question: And they wrote things down.Answer: Yes.Question: The officers that you met with that day, do you remember who they were?Answer: No, I don't.Question: Okay, if I suggest to you that it was Sergeant Couture and Detective Perron, does that sound familiar? Sorry, but the answer is no.Question: It was a long statement, at least the handwriting?Answer: Yeah.Question: And Couture would be from the Ottawa Police and Perron from the RCMP."

That, sir, is that the same video that you and I have been discussing?

A. Yes.Q. Okay, so we're on the same page, so to speak.

She played the video as follows. MS. BAIR: Your Honour, I'm going to play it back now, assuming that this all works. Starting at 10:37, which is where - it will take ten minutes....VIDEOTAPE IS PLAYEDMS. BAIR: Q. That's the portion that Ms.

Mulligan played before the jury, which stops, for the record, at 10:49:52 and started at 10:37:00. At the end of reviewing


(Bair)

10231.

that with Mr. Winn, on the 8th of October 1998, Ms. Mulligan posed the following questions on page 258 of the transcript:

"Question: You seem to have a placement sheet in front of you there or something. Do you recall what it was that you looked at on the video to find out the dates and whatnot?Answer: No, I don't.Question: You don't. All right."

And they move on. Are you able to tell us, sir, what it was that Michael Winn was looking at when he was giving the dates in that videotape?

A. Yes, it was a calendar.Q. How certain are you, sir, that it was a

calendar?A. Positive.Q. How are you able to say that it was a

calendar and be positive about it?A. Well, I have it in my notes from the

conversation from Sergeant Couture to Mr. Winn in this portion in the video, and earlier on, at the beginning of the interview, it is clearly said on the video that Mr. Winn is being provided with a calendar by Sergeant Couture.

Q. That is stated on the video, sir?A. Yes, prior to this portion here.Q. And this portion started at 10:37. I'm just

going to rewind it to 10:32. I'm going to ask you, though, whose idea was it to take notes and videotape it?

A. Sergeant Couture.Q. That interview really gallops along.A. Very long....VIDEOTAPE IS PLAYED


(Bair)

10231.

MS. BAIR: I'm sorry, but the fast forward really isn't....VIDEOTAPE IS PLAYEDMS. BAIR: Q. Is that the portion you're

referring to?A. Yes.Q. Sergeant Couture says: "Using the calendar in

front of you" on the videotape?A. Yes.Q. And that is the document that Mr. Winn

referred to, is it not?A. That is correct.Q. There is also, as we have already seen, a

written version of this interview prepared by Sergeant Couture. The portion that we started at, at 10:37, begins on which page, please?

A. Page six.Q. Or in the stamped versions?A. 194.Q. Okay, and we continued through to 148, which

is at page?A. 196.Q. Or eight of the original?A. That's correct.Q. This portion that you tell us about, where

the paper is identified not as a placement document but as a calendar, where is that, sir?

A. At the bottom portion of page 193 or page five of the original - original statement.

Q. So just prior to the portion played by Ms. Mulligan.

A. That is correct.


(Bair)

10231.

MS. BAIR: Those are my questions. Thank you, sir. Oh, you were the young guy on the right there in the picture?THE WITNESS: Yeah, much younger looking, yes.MS. BAIR: Okay.MR. MORRIS: I have no questions, thank you.MS. MULLIGAN: I do.

**********

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. MULLIGAN:Q. Sir, the handwritten portion is some 52 pages

long, is that right?A. I believe so, yes.Q. And it's in handwriting. Is it your

handwriting?A. No, it's Sergeant Claude Couture.Q. All the words clearly written and easy to

read?A. Yeah, I believe so, yes.Q. You believe so? Did you work with Sergeant

Couture for awhile?A. Yes.Q. Did you get used to his handwriting?A. Yes.Q. When you were reviewing this, were you

working from an original or a copy?A. I have not reviewed the written portion of

the statement, I reviewed the videotape.Q. Oh, I see. You said, sir, to my friend, that

- and my friend read to you a portion of my cross of Mr. Winn. Sir, I also questioned Mr. Winn about his sworn statement given to other officers, not yourself, in - when was

S.A.P. Perron - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10240.

it? Let me find the date here. November 23rd, 1993, given to an Inspector Davidson. And in that sworn statement, sir - I'm just going to show you a portion of it so you know what we're dealing with.At the bottom of page eight or page 23 in the stamped numbers, when Mr. Winn was asked about this, Inspector Davidson says: "All right, and have you reviewed any of the Ottawa-Carleton Detention records prior to this interview?"

Mr. Winn says: "I've seen one." Davidson: "Okay, do you recall what that was? Winn: Ah, it was a placement form."

You're saying that if Mr. Winn was telling the truth here where he gives a statement under oath, you didn't show him the placement form.

A. I did not show him a placement form.Q. And Sergeant Couture, in your presence, does

not call (sic) - show him a placement form.MS. BAIR: Let's make it clear....THE WITNESS: Sergeant Couture, in my presence, did not....MS. BAIR: Let's make it clear that this is an entirely different interview in relation to an entirely different matter.MS. MULLIGAN: Yes. On November....THE COURT: Yes.MS. MULLIGAN: It's November 23rd, '93. It's in relation to the matter before the court, and it's an interview with two other officers, absolutely. But that's why he was asked about this.


(Mulligan)

10240.

THE COURT: And this is subsequent to the date on which he thought he was looking at a placement form when he was looking at a calendar, if this evidence is to be believed, and he still believed that he was looking at the placement form.MS. BAIR: No, that's the danger, Your Honour, that someone might come to that conclusion. He's being asked in the 1993 interview if, prior to that interview which is in relation to these matters, he had seen a placement document, and it's in that connection that he says yes. In connection with Nick Franco, he has never said he thought he was looking at a placement document in relation....THE COURT: He didn't know what he was looking at.MS. BAIR: Exactly. It's Ms. Mulligan who thought it was a placement document.THE COURT: Okay.MS. MULLIGAN: Yes, he wasn't sure what it was, so that was the evidence as it stood until this officer came.THE COURT: Okay.MS. MULLIGAN: Q. However, if he said it under

oath to other officers that he has seen one prior, certainly prior to November 23rd, 1993, it certainly wasn't yourself or your partner who showed him a placement form.

A. That is correct.Q. You have no idea how he might have seen a

placement form if it wasn't you guys. You don't know who did it.


(Mulligan)

10240.

A. No.Q. If anyone.A. No.Q. And with respect - you testified about a need

for corroboration, that you would - you would not show Mr. Winn a placement form because you would want to be able to check his version against objective facts that you would be able to get from the jail, is that right?

A. That's correct.Q. And did you do that in this case?A. I believe Sergeant Couture would have. He

was in charge of the interview of Mr. Winn.Q. Now, Mr. Winn told you on the videotape that

he was in wing 2B at the jail.A. That's what he said.Q. And indicated that that was from October - if

I can find that - October 28th to November 5th. Is that right?A. I believe so.Q. Okay. And then he went to Millhaven.A. That's correct.Q. And if it had turned out that the jails had

records that he was in....MS. BAIR: With respect, Your Honour....THE COURT: "If it had turned out that"....MS. BAIR: "If it had turned out that." We're going to ask this officer now to analyze Mr. - my friend is making her closing submissions through the mouth of this witness, and I object.MS. MULLIGAN: I can try and rephrase the question. If I can just have a second to think.THE COURT: All right, try to rephrase it, yes.


(Mulligan)

10240.

MS. MULLIGAN: Q. Do you know, sir, for sure, whether you ever saw any jail records with respect to Mr. Winn?

A. I cannot recall.Q. But that's certainly the kind of thing you

would look for, for corroboration.A. That is correct.Q. I guess it's unfortunate, you didn't ask Mr.

Winn whether he had seen a placement form prior to your interview, did you?

A. No, we didn't.Q. Okay. And just this whole business of

Project Octopus, Nick Franco, and all these people, it has nothing to do with Mr. Stewart, right? You didn't investigate Mr. Stewart during Project Octopus?

A. No, I believe this incident occurred way before Octopus.

Q. I just want to make it clear that they were....

A. As - as far as me, myself, being involved in the project, however.

Q. Definitely two different things.A. Um-hmm.MS. MULLIGAN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Those are all my questions.

*********

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS. BAIR:Q. Did you investigate Michel Vanasse in

relation to any of your activities around then?A. Not....MS. MULLIGAN: Your Honour, I object to that question.

S.A.P. Perron - Cr-Ex. (Mulligan)

- Re-Ex. (Bair)

10244.

THE COURT: Yes.MS. BAIR: I'd like to know why. Maybe the jury should step out.THE COURT: I think the Jury better step out....JURY RETIRES (11:03 a.m.)

**********

10245.

---In the absence of the jury

THE COURT: Perhaps the officer better wait outside too. Thank you, sir....Witness exits the courtroom (11:03 a.m.)MS. MULLIGAN: Your Honour, frankly, I'm a little flabbergasted. We had a discussion prior to this witness being called. I asked if Ms. Bair intended to ask anything about Michel Vanasse so that it could be dealt with prior to the jury coming in. Ms. Bair indicated she didn't intend to go there, and then did it anyway. I didn't raise anything in cross-examination about Michel Vanasse. I asked if my client was involved in that investigation because that investigation deals with a whole bunch of murders, and I didn't want the jury left with anymore confusion that my client is responsible or somehow connected to a whole bunch of murderers in Little Italy now. So it seemed like a fair question. So (a) it doesn't rise in cross-examination and (b) it had been discussed prior to this jury coming into the room, and to go ahead and do it after that discussion, in my submission, was entirely improper.MS. BAIR: With the greatest of respect, Your Honour, I was asked if I intended to lead it. I did not. When my friend made it relevant in cross-examination, I must respond. I can only assume that she knows what she opens up by cross-examination. A suggestion in her question


10246.

as to whether her client became involved in any of these investigations is a suggestion of isolation. Her client and his group is entirely unrelated to the rest of it, and he may well be. I understand that this officer knows of Michel Vanasse. The suggestion implicit in that question, the inference that she would like the jury to draw, it seemed clear to me the minute it came out of her mouth, was that Mr. Stewart is not the sort of person that you would be aware of; he's small time; he's isolated; it's not organized crime like that. I intend to make the point that Michel Vanasse is known to this officer. I expect he'll say no, Michel Vanasse was not part of Project Octopus, but he will say that he was known to him as an intelligence officer, as being part of organized crime. That's what I expect.MS. MULLIGAN: And I would have expected - I'm sorry, were you done?MS. BAIR: No.MS. MULLIGAN: Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps I should be sitting down.MS. BAIR: And to suggest that a question whether her client was involved does not lead to this, in my respectful submission, is naive.MS. MULLIGAN: First of all, those submissions, if Ms. Bair thought some door was open - seriously thought that - should have been made in the absence of the jury, given the discussions on the record prior to the jury coming in. Secondly, it's ludicrous, in my


10246.

respectful submission, to suggest that my asking if my client had anything to do with killing - I don't know how many murders she led in-chief....THE COURT: Eight.MS. MULLIGAN: Eight murders in Little Italy - opens up the door to Mr. Vanasse's character and reputation in general amongst the RCMP. It just doesn't - it doesn't go there. There's no connection whatsoever. I am trying the best I can, with respect to Mr. Stewart - there is a lot of evidence that comes in about Mr. Stewart's reputation, propensity, drug-dealing, all of that, under the guise of motive for the Crown, and it's in there. But when we have evidence like this where Ms. Bair takes the time to lead that there were eight murders in Little Italy and that sort of thing, I just want the jury to be clear that my client wasn't being investigated, particularly when we have a witness in common, Winn. To suggest that that opens the door to Mr. Vanasse's general reputation - not even on that investigation, but his general reputation with this police officer - in my submission, is wrong, and just is not so. The question doesn't open that door, never could, and didn't, in my respectful submission.

**********


10246.

RULING

McWILLIAM, J. (Orally)The ultimate irony here is you took a "flyer" with respect to the video the first time through, to turn the calendar into a placement form, and the Crown has now proven what you thought was relevant, to be almost totally irrelevant to this case, and so that is sort of the ultimate irony in the background of all of this. But leaving that aside for the moment, the issue now is whether there might be some prejudice attached to the Crown's conceivable undertaking? I do not put it as strongly as that because of the reason that the Crown gives, that if you choose to go somewhere, when the Crown does not raise it in-chief, you do it at whatever risk to you that you do it in. What are we going to get out of this? We are going to get a mention of Michel Vanasse and that this officer knew Michel Vanasse. It may be that the jury already thinks that Michel Vanasse was known by anybody who was worth anything anyway, so it really does not advance the case that much, and it may be, in a sense, in this context, more prejudicial that it is probative, to my way of thinking. I think I will just leave it alone. Bring back the jury.

**********

RulingMcWilliam, J.

10249.

THE COURT: Bring back the witness, please.MS. MULLIGAN: Your Honour, I think just before the jury comes back, to be fair, given that Ms. Bair has asked was he investigated, and I made my objection because I assumed that she was going into his reputation, I think, to not leave the jury with the impression that he was, probably the officer should answer no, that he wasn't in that - in Project Octopus, and then leave it at that, because it may leave the impression that now Mr. Vanasse is out murdering eight people in Little Italy, and that's a concern.MS. BAIR: Here is the point that needed to be clarified. Mr. Vanasse was not involved in Project Octopus - just a moment, please - neither was Mr. Stewart, but that doesn't mean that they're not known to the police service. I mean, her suggestion is that he's a small time guy...MS. MULLIGAN: No.MS. BAIR: ...and whether - whether she intended that or not, that is an inference that is available to the jury, and to straighten it out by saying no, Mr. Vanasse wasn't involved either, leaves that inference available to the jury. I don't intend to involve either Mr. Vanasse or Mr. Stewart in Project Octopus, but I do intend to place them in their proper perspective in the community, which is something my friend has attempted to diminish. Perhaps


10251.

"attempted" implies intent - has managed to diminish.THE COURT: Well, I'm not - you don't get anything out of me and neither does the Crown. Just leave it alone. It's been mentioned. Forget it. Bring back the jury.

**********


10251.

--- Upon resuming in the presence of the jury at 11:10 a.m.

SERGE ANDRÉ PIERRE PERRON (PREVIOUSLY SWORN)RE-ENTERS WITNESS BOX :

...JURY ENTERS (11:10 a.m.)THE COURT: Mrs. Bair.MS. BAIR: Thank you, Your Honour. I only have one other question.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS. BAIR : (continues)Q. Ms. Mulligan was asking whether Detective

Sergeant Couture's writing was legible, and I've extracted the portion of the interview that the jury has heard and would ask to submit that as an exhibit. Is this page 193 and five of the statement, as you indicated, through the portions?

A. Yes.MS. BAIR: Now, with the necessity of a little bit of editing, Your Honour, I would submit this as a provisionally lettered exhibit, and then I'll take out the portion above the reference to the calendar, but I needed it, at this point, for the page number.THE COURT: All right.MS. BAIR: I'll edit it, and if we could put this provisionally as the next lettered exhibit and the next break....THE COURT: Well, subject to you talking to your friend about the editing, and then we'll do that.COURT REGISTRAR: Lettered Exhibit X, Your Honour.

S.A.P. Perron - Re-Ex.

(Bair)

10252.

THE COURT: All right.MS. BAIR: Thank you very much.EXHIBIT LETTER X: Excerpts of statement of Michael Winn - Produced and marked.MS. MULLIGAN: I'm sorry, Ms. Bair, can you just tell me what page you started on?MS. BAIR: 193, and the reference to the calendar at the bottom of 193. And at 194, the portion that we started with: "Oh, that's it - to what you know at this time on the murder of Lenny Rousseau", and through to the end: "All that time, was Nick in 2B? Answer: Yes, he was."THE WITNESS: Yes.MS. BAIR: Those are my questions of this witness, Your Honour.THE COURT: Thank you very much, sir, for your help today.THE WITNESS: Thank you.THE COURT: Passez une belle journée.THE WITNESS: Merci beaucoup.MS. BAIR: Moi aussi.

**********

MS. BAIR: Mr. Cooper has the next witness, Your Honour. With the court's permission, I'll withdraw.THE COURT: All right.MR. COOPER: Apparently the witness is just down the hall for a few minutes, Your Honour.THE COURT: I see, all right. Well, we'll go down the hall too, then.

S.A.P. Perron - Re-Ex.

(Bair)

10252.

MR. COOPER: Okay.THE COURT: Coordination is important. Yes, we'll take the regular break now....JURY RETIRES (11:15 a.m.)

R E C E S S (11:15 a.m.)

U P O N R E S U M I N G: (11:38 a.m.)

...Elizabeth Burbidge present as Court Interpreter (French/English)

THE COURT: I guess you better bring in the witness.COURT CONSTABLE: Bring the jury in now?THE COURT: Yes.MR. COOPER: Madam Interpreter has already been sworn in.THE COURT: In the trial already.MR. COOPER: Months ago, Your Honour.THE COURT: I remember. I remember....JURY ENTERS (11:40 a.m.)

DENIS SIGOUIN: SWORN

MR. COOPER: Actually, Your Honour, there's one tidying up matter to do, and this is the tape that was played with the previous witness. I would ask that it be made the next lettered exhibit, please.THE COURT: All right.COURT REGISTRAR: Exhibit Y, Your Honour.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

THE COURT: All right.EXHIBIT LETTER Y: Videotape - Produced and marked.MR. COOPER: Thank you, Your Honour.THE COURT: Thank you very much.

EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. COOPER:Q. Mr. Sigouin, I understand, sir, that you knew

Michel Giroux.A. Yes.Q. And how did you - first of all, maybe we'll

do broad questions and then we'll narrow it down. Did you have any drug transactions with Michel Giroux?

A. Yes, I did.Q. Okay, and who was buying and who was selling?A. I was selling to him.Q. Okay. Where did the cocaine - I'm sorry,

what were you selling to him?A. Cocaine.Q. Where was it coming from?A. From Rick Trudel.Q. Okay. Those are the broad strokes. Now

we'll get into some more details, if we could. First of all, sir, how did you come to know Michel Giroux originally?

A. From my brother who was working at a rad shop in Orléans and he was working with him too.

Q. Okay, at a radiator shop?A. Yeah.Q. And he was working with whom?A. With my brother Jean-Claude.Q. Jean-Claude and Michel Giroux were working

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

together?A. Yeah.Q. Okay. I'm just going to move just a little

bit closer so I can hear you a little better. I would ask you to try and speak up so that everybody in the room can hear.

A. Okay.Q. Was there any other relationship between you

- any other way that you met?A. Yeah, well, there was Annette Desjardins that

was common-law with my brother Jean-Claude.Q. Okay.A. And she lived in Carlsbad Springs. She was

raised in Carlsbad Springs and Michel Giroux was in Carlsbad Springs also.

Q. Is this the same brother that worked at Orléans...

A. Yes.Q. ...at the radiator place?A. Yes.Q. Okay. And were there any other connections

as between you and Michel Giroux with your family - your father?A. Yeah, my father knew his father.Q. Okay. So through your - your two fathers

knew one another. Your brother worked with Michel and your brother's wife knew Michel from long before.

A. Yes.Q. Okay. And when was it approximately when you

met Michel Giroux?A. I'd say it was probably in '85 or '86.Q. Okay. Do you remember where you were living

at the time, sir?

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

A. On Friel Street.Q. Okay. Now, I understand, sir, that your

address history is helpful to you in fixing rough dates to things, is that correct?

A. Yes.Q. And when did you live on Friel Street, sir?A. It was in '83.Q. Okay.A. '83, '84.Q. Okay.A. I got it here.Q. Okay. I understand you have some materials

with you - some transcripts of previous testimony in one binder, and some statements and edited officers' notes in the other binder, is that correct, sir?

A. Yes.Q. Okay. Would it assist you to refresh your

memory from the address history that you have?A. Yes.Q. Okay. If there's no objections?MS. MULLIGAN: As long as I can just know what it is precisely he's looking at. Addresses, but I'm not sure which document.MR. COOPER: Perhaps I could just borrow it for a moment, sir, and I'll show Ms. Mulligan. MR. COOPER: Q. I'll ask you to take a look at

those, sir. Does that refresh your memory?A. Yeah.Q. Okay. When was it, then, you started to live

on Friel Street?A. In '84.Q. Okay. I gather the birth date of one of

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

your children is of some assistance, is it?A. Yeah, in '85. My youngest one was born

there.Q. Okay, and where were you living when the

youngest one was born?A. On Friel Street.Q. Okay. And who were you living with?A. With Joanne Demers.Q. Okay, and how long were you with Joanne

Demers?A. Altogether, you mean?Q. Yes.A. Eighteen years.Q. Eighteen years?A. Yeah.Q. And how many children have you had with

Joanne?A. Two. Two.Q. Two? Okay. And the youngest was born in

'85, you said.A. '85, yeah.Q. Okay. Now, where did you move after Friel?

When did you leave Friel, approximately, and where did you move to?

A. It was in '88, and then I moved to 143 Beausoleil.

Q. Okay. So you're in Friel from '84 to '88.A. Yes.Q. Late '84 to '88, and you moved to Beausoleil

in late '88. How long do you stay there?A. Till '93.Q. Okay. Are these addresses far from one

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

another?A. No, they're just about a block away from one

another.Q. Okay. Is there any difference in the type of

residence?A. Well, on 200 Friel, it was a high rise

building.Q. Yes.A. And the other one was a townhouse at 143

Beausoleil.Q. Okay. And you leave Beausoleil at what time,

sir?A. In '93.Q. Okay. And after that, your address isn't

particularly relevant to you to refresh your memory, is that correct?

A. It was on Farrier's Lane.Q. Yes.A. Yeah.Q. Now, I understand, sir, that the lady to your

right is a court interpreter. Your native language is French?A. Yes.Q. If you need assistance from the interpreter

with respect to anything, please consult her and she'll translate for you.

A. Okay.Q. Now, I've got the address history here in

order to backdate to when you met Michel Giroux, and that was what year, sir, approximately?

A. It's about in '84.Q. Okay. And at that time, was Michel with

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

Manon Bourdeau?A. No, he wasn't.Q. Did you later meet Manon Bourdeau?A. Yes, on Friel Street.Q. Okay. Had Michel and Manon ever attended at

your residence?A. Yes, they did, once.Q. And maybe we can jump ahead with that. Do

you know which residence that was at?A. It was on Friel Street.Q. Okay. And was there anybody else with

them...A. Yes.Q. ...at your house?A. Yes, there was another couple, Pierre Laprise

and Suzanne Catagoria (sic), something like that, anyways.Q. Would Guarraudgi sound like the right name,

sir?A. Yeah, something like that.Q. When you first met Michel Giroux, sir, were

you using drugs?A. Not cocaine.Q. What were you - were you using a different

drug?A. Just smoking hash, yeah.Q. Okay. After you met Mr. Giroux, sir, at some

point in time, did you start using cocaine yourself?A. Yes, I did.Q. Okay. Was Michel Giroux the person that

introduced you to cocaine?A. No, he wasn't.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

Q. Okay. When you first met Mr. Giroux, was he using cocaine?

A. No, not when I first met him.Q. Okay. At some later point, did he come to

use cocaine?A. Yes, he did.Q. Okay. And were you involved in that?A. Yes, I was.Q. Did you introduce him to cocaine?A. No, I didn't.Q. Okay. At about what time frame, sir - you

said at the beginning that you had some interaction with Mr. Giroux in selling him cocaine. When did that begin and how did it begin?

A. Well, it was in about 1985 - close to that, anyways, '85...

Q. Okay.A. ...that Michel Giroux came to my place. And

a friend had made me try cocaine, and he came to my place - I was on cocaine - and he asked me if I could get some cocaine for him.

Q. Okay, you were taking cocaine that day, is that what you're saying, sir?

A. No, no, I wasn't taking cocaine, I started taking cocaine.

Q. Okay. So by that point in time, you were using cocaine.

A. Using cocaine, yeah.Q. Okay. And what happened, I'm sorry? You

said Mr. Giroux came to your house, sir?A. Yeah, and asked me if I could get him some

cocaine, because he knew that I was on cocaine too.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

Q. Okay. And so that was around 1985. And did you in fact help him out?

A. Yes, I did.Q. Okay. Where were you getting your cocaine

from, at that time, sir?A. From Paolo Trudel.Q. Okay. Had you gotten it from anyone else

before Paolo Trudel?A. No, it was just a friend that came over to my

place, the first one that made me use cocaine.Q. Yes.A. And that was it, but the first one that I

started buying was off Paolo Trudel.Q. Okay. Did you ever deal with - you mentioned

Rick Trudel, when I asked a question a few moments ago. Did you ever deal with any other of the Trudel family or cousins, et cetera, for cocaine?

A. Yes, I did.Q. And who was that?A. That was Richard Trudel, René and Ti-Guy

Trudel.Q. Okay, Richard, René and Ti-Guy...A. Yeah.Q. ...and Paolo.A. Yeah.Q. Now, where does Ti-Guy Trudel fit into this,

in terms of who did you get it from first, second, third, fourth, that sort of thing?

A. Well, I started getting it from Ti-Guy at first.

Q. So Ti-Guy is the first of these Trudel individuals that you purchased cocaine from. Who was the

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

second?A. It was Paolo.Q. Okay. And who was the third?A. From Rick.Q. Okay. And where does Rick - René fit in?A. Well, René was bringing me the cocaine.Q. From whom?A. From Rick.Q. Okay. Now, when you were buying it initially

from Ti-Guy Trudel, is that - are you selling it as well?A. No, that was at first when I was using it for

myself.Q. Okay. And why did you stop dealing with Ti-

Guy Trudel?A. Because I started dealing and I wanted to get

a better price, like.Q. Okay, so who did you go to then when you

started dealing and wanted to get....A. I went to Paolo. To Paolo.Q. Okay. We're going to - if we could just try

not to talk over one another, sir. I have a habit of doing that as well. Okay, you were dealing with Ti-Guy and you started dealing and you switched to....

A. To Paolo Trudel.Q. To Paolo Trudel. And why was that again,

sir?A. Because I wanted to sell it myself.Q. Okay. You said something about a better

price.A. Yes, to get it - quantity - like, you know,

from Ti-Guy Trudel, I was just getting small amounts for

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

myself.Q. Okay. And how did you get a better price

from Paolo?A. Well, if you buy seven grams instead of just

one gram.Q. Okay. What was the relationship with Ti-Guy

and Paolo?A. They were cousin (sic).Q. Was Ti-Guy upset when you switched to his

cousin Paolo?A. No, he wasn't.Q. And about when was it, sir, that you did the

switch from Ti-Guy to Paolo to get a better price?A. It was in about '85, there - beginning of

'85.Q. Okay. How long had you been dealing with Ti-

Guy yourself before Paolo?A. Couple of months, there. Probably four-five

months, there, till I got into the dealing.Q. Okay. And how long did you deal with Paolo?A. Till about a month before his death.Q. Okay. Now, we've heard evidence that Paolo

died in November of 1989. Does that assist you, sir?A. Yes.Q. So it was about a month before that?A. Yes.Q. And why did you stop dealing with Paolo?A. Because Paolo was too agitated at the end,

there, and I couldn't get a hold of him and....Q. What do you mean by Paolo - sorry, what do

you mean by "agitated"?A. Well, he was pretty jumpy and nervous and, I

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

don't know, he wasn't himself no more.Q. Was he dependable before this?A. Yes, he was.Q. Was he dependable at this point, a month

before his death?A. No, he wasn't.Q. And you've told us that you switched - you

stopped dealing with Paolo about a month before his death, and his death was in November '89. And what do you do at that point, sir, in order to get cocaine?

A. I go and see Rick Trudel.Q. Okay. Did you deal with anybody in between

Paolo Trudel and Rick Trudel?A. Yes, I probably bought a couple of grams for

myself, there, from Ti-Guy Trudel.Q. Okay, back to Ti-Guy, but just for yourself,

you said?A. Yes.Q. Now, you knew these four Trudel gentlemen and

you knew Michel Giroux. Was there ever an occasion, sir - we'll deal with Ti-Guy first because he's the first one you speak of - was there ever an occasion where Ti-Guy Trudel and Michel Giroux met?

A. Yes, there was.Q. And could you tell the jury how that took

place, sir?A. I was living on Friel - at 200 Friel then.Q. Yes.A. And we were just between Friel and

Beausoleil. That was about a block between, and Ti-Guy Trudel was there with Greg, and me and Mike Giroux were coming out of my place from Friel - apartment.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

Q. Yes.A. And we just started talking and Michel Giroux

asked me - well, he wanted some hash then.Q. Yes.A. And I asked Ti-Guy if he could get him some

hash, and he said yes, that Greg could have some for him.Q. Okay, who is Greg?A. Greg was a guy from 300... - 380 Murray

Street.Q. 380 Murray?A. Yeah.Q. Is that in the vicinity at all, sir, of these

other two addresses?A. Yes, it's still around.Q. I'm sorry?A. It is still around.Q. Okay.A. Right in the back of the project where we

used to live.Q. Okay. And did Greg have any other name, sir?A. Yes, Stretch.Q. So you and Michel Giroux are coming out of

your building, you said.A. Yes.Q. And Michel is looking for hash.A. Yes.Q. And where do you find Ti-Guy?A. He's right there between the store and the

apartment building, which is probably 100 feet from the apartment building, there.

Q. Okay, and do you and Michel and Ti-Guy have

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

any conversation?A. Yes, we were just all together there, the

four of us.Q. Okay. And you know Ti-Guy Trudel and you

know Michel Giroux. Were there any introductions made between these other two gentlemen, between Michel and Ti-Guy?

A. I can't follow.Q. Do you introduce Michel to Ti-Guy?A. Yes, I do. Yeah.Q. Okay. And what about this Greg fellow or

Stretch, how does - how did you get in contact with him that day?

A. Well, he was just right there when we were talking about getting hash.

Q. And is Michel Giroux introduced to Greg or Stretch?

A. Yes, he was.Q. And who did that introduction?A. I did.Q. And was there any hash dealt with on that

particular day?A. I'm not sure if it was right at that moment,

but it was in the day that he had some.Q. Okay. Now, do you know if there was any

subsequent contact? Were you involved after that in getting hash for Mr. Giroux through either of these gentlemen?

A. No.Q. Did Mr. Giroux have hash after that?A. Yes, he did.Q. On occasions?A. Yeah.Q. He didn't get it from you?

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

A. No.Q. Okay. That was Mr. Giroux meeting Ti-Guy

Trudel. Was there any other occasions that you know of where Michel Giroux and Ti-Guy Trudel met?

A. No, it was just that first time.Q. That's the only time you were present for it.A. Yeah.Q. Okay. Paolo Trudel is the next gentleman

that you've mentioned, sir. Was there ever an occasion where Paolo Trudel and Michel Giroux met?

A. Yes, there was.Q. And how did that happen?A. One time I was going to Carlsbad Spring (sic)

bringing seven grams to Michel Giroux.Q. Yes.A. And Paolo was with me.Q. Okay, what do you mean by Carlsbad Springs?A. That was at the bar.Q. Okay, Carlsbad Springs Hotel...A. Yeah.Q. ...or Show Bar?A. Show Bar, yeah.Q. Okay. And you were bringing Michel Giroux

what?A. Seven grams of cocaine.Q. Okay, and Paolo Trudel was with you.A. Yes.Q. And were there any introductions made?A. Yes. I told Mike that that was Paolo.Q. Okay. And did Mike know where the source of

your cocaine was?

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

A. What do you mean?Q. Did he know who was supplying you with the

cocaine?A. Yes.Q. Okay. And after this meeting, did Paolo know

who your customer was?A. Yes.Q. Okay. Did you have any other customers

besides Michel Giroux, sir?A. Yeah, a couple of people that I sold there

too.Q. Okay.A. But just small amounts.Q. Just small amounts...A. Yes.Q. ...to the other people. Did you have any

other main customers other than Mr. Giroux?A. No.Q. And this meeting between Michel Giroux and

Paolo Trudel and you was at the Show Bar, you said.A. Yes.Q. Okay, are you aware of any other meetings

that Michel Giroux had with Paolo Trudel?A. Yes, one time in the front lawn at 143

Beausoleil.Q. 143 Beausoleil, that's your address at the

townhouse?A. Yes.Q. And maybe you could just describe the layout

there of the front area of your townhouse when you were living there.

A. Well, it was just in the front, there - a

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

little piece of grass - and we were just sitting right - always in the front there, just partying, drinking beer or....

Q. And it was one of those occasions.A. Yes.Q. Okay. Next, moving to Richard Trudel, sir.

Were there any occasions when Michel Giroux met Richard Trudel?A. Yes, he did, at 143 Beausoleil.Q. Okay. All right, and again, that's your

townhouse?A. Yes.Q. Okay, was there more than one occasion there?A. Yes, there were two times.Q. Okay. And perhaps you could just describe

them from the start. The first time?A. The first time is in my place at 143

Beausoleil.Q. Okay. And how did that come about?A. Rick Trudel was in front of the door, right

next to the door...Q. Yes.A. ...in front of my place, and Michel Giroux

came in and I just told him this was Mike and this was Rick - introduced them to one another.

Q. Okay.A. And then Rick Trudel left.Q. Now, at that point in time, you're not

dealing with Paolo anymore.A. No.Q. Okay. That's correct?A. Yes.Q. Okay. After this meeting, did Michel Giroux

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

know that Rick Trudel was the source of your cocaine?A. Yes.Q. And did Rick Trudel know that Michel Giroux

was your main customer?A. Yes.Q. Okay. Now, you said there were two meetings

with those two gentlemen.A. Yes, and one more time right in front of my

place again, there. We were just sitting....Q. Out on the front lawn?A. Yeah, sitting around and....Q. Okay. What about René Trudel, any meetings

between René Trudel that you know about and Michel Giroux?A. I don't think that they met, but he knew he

was my customer.Q. René Trudel knew that Michel Giroux was your

customer?A. Yes.Q. Okay. And did Michel Giroux know about René

Trudel?A. No, I don't think so.Q. What was René Trudel's relationship - and I

don't mean - I know they're brothers - but what was René Trudel's relationship with Mr. Trudel in terms of drugs?

A. He was the one bringing me all the drugs.Q. Okay. René was bringing you drugs, but whose

drugs were they, sir?A. Rick Trudel's drugs.Q. When was the last time, sir, that you spoke

to Michel Giroux?A. It was just between Christmas and New Year's,

just before he died, there.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

Q. Just before he died?A. Yeah.Q. And we've had evidence he died in January

1990, so you're talking about Christmas '89 and New Year's 1990, is that correct?

A. Yes.Q. And what was - what did you talk about the

last time you spoke with Michel Giroux?A. He asked me if I had a half a gram for him,

and I told him no, I didn't.Q. A half a gram, is that a big quantity?A. No, it's just a small quantity.Q. What were you normally supplying Mr. Giroux

with - what kind of quantities?A. With seven grams at a time - seven gram (sic)

cocaine.Q. Okay. And this request after Christmas was

just for a half a gram.A. Yes.Q. Can you give us any estimate of the dollar

value of seven grams, first of all?A. Seven grams is about 350 to 400.Q. Okay. And the smaller amount, what would

that be worth, roughly?A. About $50 - 40 to....Q. $50?A. Yeah, 40 to 50.Q. Okay. What was the end result of that

conversation, that one between Christmas and New Year's?A. Then I didn't hear of him no more.Q. Okay. When was the last time that you

actually sold drugs to Mr. Giroux?

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

A. Just right after Christmas, I had given him seven grams of cocaine.

Q. Were you profiting by this in any way, sir?A. Yes, I was.Q. How were you profiting?A. I was buffing it. I was putting two grams of

buff in seven gram (sic) of cocaine.Q. Okay. Maybe we'll just go over that. How

much cocaine do you get from Paolo Trudel or Ricky Trudel, depending on who you're dealing with at the time?

A. Seven gram of cocaine.Q. Seven grams of cocaine, and what do you do to

that seven grams of cocaine?A. I take out two grams from the seven gram of

cocaine...Q. Yes.A. ...and I put two grams of buff.Q. And what is buff?A. Well, it's buff that you buff it with, like,

you know.Q. Okay. Do you know what the - what the buff

is made out of?A. It's a powder - a white powder - dextrose,

that I used to use.Q. Dextrose?A. Yes.Q. Okay. So you take out two grams of cocaine,

you put two grams of dextrose in...A. Yes.Q. ...and I suppose you stir it around or

something, do you?A. That's right.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

Q. And did Michel Giroux know that you were buffing the cocaine that he was receiving?

A. Yes, he did.Q. Okay. And what did you do with this two

grams that you removed each time?A. I was using it myself.Q. Did you buff it first or just use it?A. No, I just used it.Q. Okay. What would that two grams be worth to

you, that two grams you've taken out?A. If I would sell it?Q. Yes.A. Probably 180 to $200.Q. Okay. So that's sort of your profit each

time you have a transaction - a deal...A. Yes.Q. ...with Mr. Giroux. Now, how many years

altogether, then, did you deal with Mr. Giroux? How many years did you supply him? Over what period of time?

A. About three and a half years.Q. Okay. And over that period of time, where

did - where did these deals take place? Give us all the locations where the deals took place. You already told us about one deal at the Carlsbad Springs Hotel where Paolo Trudel was present. What other locations were involved, sir?

A. They were at 200 Friel, at 143 Beausoleil, and there was at Charlie Chang (sic) on St. Laurent Boulevard.

Q. Okay. Those other two addresses, Friel and Beausoleil, those are your - that's your home...

A. Yes.Q. ...on each occasion. And now you're saying

something about another location, Charlie Chan's on?

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

A. St. Laurent Boulevard.Q. St. Laurent.A. It was a Chinese restaurant.Q. Okay. You indicated that Mr. Giroux and

Manon Bourdeau had been to your house socially on one occasion. Was there more than one occasion, sir?

A. No, there was only one occasion.Q. Where the two of them were there.A. Yes.Q. Okay. Had you ever been to their home?A. Yes.Q. How many times?A. Twice.Q. Okay. And did that have anything to do with

drug dealing?A. Maybe once, yes.Q. Okay. So that would be another location

where a deal took place.A. Yes.Q. Okay. Did your wife, Joanne Demers - did she

ever go to Mr. Giroux's house?A. No, she didn't.Q. Now, during this time, sir, you're indicating

that you got two grams for your own use. Was your wife using any as well?

A. Yes, she was.Q. Okay, were you sharing with anybody except

for your wife?A. No, it was mostly with my wife.Q. Okay. And how much were you consuming say in

a week?A. Sometimes two grams. It went up to seven

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

grams a couple times.Q. Okay, so two to seven grams per week for your

use.A. Yes.Q. And your wife's use.A. Yes. It was divided between the two of us.Q. Okay. And over this period that you're

dealing with Mr. Giroux, how often - is this pretty much a weekly thing for you - your own consumption?

A. Yes.Q. How did Mr. Giroux pay you, sir?A. After that he had sold the quantity that I

gave him.Q. Okay, is that what's known as a "front"?A. Yes.Q. Okay. What was the delay time - the lag

time?A. Probably the second day or third day.Q. And once he paid you up, how long until he

asked for some more?A. Sometimes I'd give him right away, sometimes

it could've been a week after. It all depends.Q. Okay. Did Mr. Giroux ever indicate, sir,

that - whether he had the intention of stopping his relationship with you...

A. Yes.Q. ...the cocaine part?A. He did.Q. What was that indication?MS. MULLIGAN: Well, Your Honour, is that not hearsay? It sounds like it to me.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10261.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, perhaps the jury should leave because I really didn't hear the objection....JURY RETIRES (12:10 p.m.)

---In the absence of the jury

MR. COOPER: You better excuse yourself as well, if you would, Mr. Sigouin.THE COURT: Yes, would you wait outside, sir, please.THE WITNESS: Okay.THE COURT: Thank you....Witness leaves the courtroomMS. MULLIGAN: Yes, Your Honour...THE COURT: Yes, Ms. Mulligan.MS. MULLIGAN: ...I thought it might be a good time to make the objection. I don't know, this one isn't particularly significant, but there may other areas that my friend wants to get into as to conversations with Mr. Giroux. The question was: "Did Mr. Giroux ever indicate anything to you about quitting or stopping using cocaine?" Something to that effect. I may not have the question exactly right but that was the area that Mr. Cooper wanted to get into, and Mr. Sigouin, I expect, would be saying: "Yes, he told me that he was going to quit as soon as the baby was born." It's hearsay. It's classic hearsay and although this one, as I say, isn't particularly significant and crucial, I thought it was a good time to object because I don't


10281.

know if there are other conversations, but certainly this one as well is hearsay from the deceased; not a dying declaration, and no exception, in my submission, as to reliability. That's the kind of statement one makes, you know, I say, on a regular basis, that I have an intention to quit smoking or whatever, but in my submission it's just - it's classic hearsay, it doesn't go in, and it's not really relevant.THE COURT: Your client, please....Ms. Mulligan speaks to Mr. StewartMS. MULLIGAN: I know there are a number of areas like this, and Mr. Stewart just reminded me of one of them. In the transcript that I was reviewing, Mr. Sigouin is asked about whether he knows the relationship between Mr. Sauvé and Mr. Trudel, and then it comes out during examination and cross-examination that he heard that through rumours in the project. So those kinds of things....MR. COOPER: Let's get to that. It's a totally different area.MS. MULLIGAN: Yes, but I don't know what else there is from Mr. Giroux that my friend wants to lead through the mouth of Mr. Sigouin, but in my submission it's just hearsay. It doesn't go in.MR. McKECHNIE: I have nothing to add.THE COURT: Nothing to add. Thank you.MR. DANDYK: Your Honour, I don't know if we're missing - state of mind is a prime exception and Khan, Smith, and all of the other case law haven't changed the old exceptions to the


10281.

hearsay rule. State of mind is always admissible. That's clearly what it is, state of mind. It's one of the standard exceptions, and they survive any kind of reliable and necessary consideration. It always has been an exception to the hearsay rule.MS. MULLIGAN: If it's relevant. I agree. But is his state of mind as to his intention to quit relevant?THE COURT: This is a conversation between a supplier and a customer that the supplier may be interested in getting out of the business at some point. Now, it's not being led for the truth of the fact that Giroux really got out of the business but that, in fact, it was said in the presence of his supplier. Presumably, theoretically, if the supplier acted on it, he would find other customers or do any number of things, depending on this. I don't know. So it isn't really for the truth of whether he got out of the business himself or not but for whether it was said in the presence of this fellow. It may be relevant to that issue, and where it goes, I don't know.MS. MULLIGAN: My only point would be that that isn't relevant to anything, that whole area - as to what Mr. Giroux's intentions were after the baby was born, at that point in time, isn't relevant to any issue in this case. It has to be probative. It has to make something more likely in this case. In my submission, it's the kind of evidence that - I suppose it's good


10281.

character or good intention evidence about the deceased, but it certainly isn't relevant to any issue in this case.THE COURT: Well, I don't know what - how it fits into the case. They never allow judges to really know that.MR. COOPER: May I just have a moment with Mr. Dandyk, Your Honour? Your Honour, the Crown is going to take the position on this topic that Ms. Mulligan - for this witness having conversations with the deceased, we will take the position that it is hearsay. We're not going to ask for an exception. Pardon-me? ...Off record discussionsMR. COOPER: We're not going to explore the exception. Now, of course, the other side of this, for Ms. Mulligan's edification, is that there are issues - this witness has been cross-examined by defence counsel in the past about Mr. Giroux saying: "I have other dealers", et cetera. That, of course, is the same principle.MS. MULLIGAN: Oh yes, and the only thing that I thought was relevant out of that was where he said he saw Mr. Giroux being supplied by other dealers himself. I agree that I can't be asking him about those other dealers, not in the circumstances of this particular relationship. I don't think it has that reliability.THE COURT: All right. Let's go on.MR. COOPER: What Ms. Mulligan is referring to, of course, Your Honour, is something where the witness was completely confused. That's been


10281.

clarified later. It was these people buying from Mr. Giroux. That was the - it's the coming and going of that. But we'll leave that for Ms. Mulligan. I trust it won't be put without the necessary clarifications, corrections, that are - go through the number of transcripts here. So I'll move on. THE COURT: All right.MR. COOPER: I'll skip the cessation after the baby has been born and move on to something else.THE COURT: I'm glad to get the Crown's decision because I'm not so sure, now that I think about it, it's totally relevant, but anyway. But I'll at least save that for my memoirs.MR. DANDYK: Well, if anybody wishes, I could spend about half a day on it....THE COURT: Yes.

**********


10281.

--- Upon resuming in the presence of the jury at 12:16 p.m.

DENIS SIGOUIN (PREVIOUSLY SWORN)RE-ENTERS WITNESS BOX :

...JURY ENTERS (12:16 p.m.)

EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. COOPER:Q. Sir, we're not going to discuss conversations

you had specifically with Mr. Giroux, okay? So the last question, don't answer it.

A. Okay.Q. Moving on, then. I have a place to move on

to as well. Over the course of the period of time that you dealt with Mr. Giroux, was there any extended lapses in your relationship with him or was it pretty much consistent?

A. No, there was - well, between the three and a half years, there was about a year that it was pretty slow that we didn't see each other too much.

Q. Okay. Were you using cocaine through that year as well?

A. Yes, I was.Q. Let's talk about the effects of cocaine on

you personally, sir, if we could, for a few moments. Can you give us an idea of your work history? I don't need to know where particularly you work now but have you been working fulltime for this whole period?

A. Yes, I - I was.Q. And you're working fulltime now?A. Yes, I am.Q. Well, except for today, maybe.A. Yeah.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10289.

Q. During the time that you used cocaine, sir, did you ever miss a day's work?

A. No, I didn't.Q. Were you able to operate a motor vehicle...A. Yes.Q. ...when you were using cocaine?A. Yes.Q. At some point - how long do the effects last

for you, sir?A. About half an hour to an hour.Q. And how were you consuming it? How were you

using it?A. Just sniffing it.Q. Sniffing it?A. Yes.Q. Snorting it or sniffing it?A. Snorting it, yeah.Q. When did you stop, sir?A. In 1995. I had stopped to go to a treatment

program.Q. Okay. And how long did the treatment program

last?A. It was for 28 days.Q. Okay. And have you ever fallen off the

wagon, so to speak, from January '95 until now?A. Yes, I did, once.Q. Okay, and how long were you off the wagon?A. After that - how long after that I came from

the treatment centre, is that what?Q. When you fell off the wagon, you used cocaine

again, did you?A. Yes, I did.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10289.

Q. How long did you use cocaine on that time?A. For just a couple of days.Q. Okay. So except for that couple of days,

sir, have you used cocaine since January 1995 until today's date?

A. No.Q. Did you have any other alcohol or drug

problems at that time, sir?A. Yes, I had a (sic) alcohol problem.Q. Okay. And have you addressed that in any

way? A. Yes.Q. Have you dealt with that?A. I'm in AA program right now.Q. Okay. And what about abstinence from

alcohol, what time frame are we talking about there? Is it the same as the cocaine?

A. It's the same occasion, yeah. The same.Q. Now, getting back to your relationship, sir -

oh, no, there's one topic that Mr. - Detective Ralko wanted me to address. Can I have that piece of paper you have? We talked about this Greg or Stretch, the guy with the hash at 380 Murray?

A. Yes.Q. Did you ever physically see any other

meetings with Greg and Michel Giroux?A. Yes, one time.Q. Okay. Were you involved in it personally?A. No.Q. What did you see?A. I was just coming out from 200 Friel.Q. Yes.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10289.

A. And they were standing approximately the same place where I told you that they were, just probably 100 feet away, and Michel Giroux was with Stretch and Ti-Guy, there - was there too.

Q. And Ti-Guy was there as well...A. Yeah.Q. ...at that time.A. Yes.Q. Okay, and you weren't in the loop, on this

occasion.A. No.Q. Now, your relationship with the Trudel

family, have you ever been to - when - first of all, Paolo Trudel's address history, where did he live when he died?

A. I think it was in the west end, but I don't know exactly where.

Q. Where did he live previous to that?A. At first, he was in the project itself.Q. Near where you were living?A. Yes.Q. Okay. And when you were - you say you

stopped dealing with him a month before he died. The last time you dealt with him, where was he? Was he in the west end or was he in Lowertown?

A. I think he was in the west end or on - in Vanier somewhere, on Landry Street.

Q. Okay.A. Yeah.Q. Now, had you been to his home?A. One time, yeah.Q. Okay, and....A. That was....

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10289.

Q. Sorry, go ahead.A. That was in - in Quebec side there, where ski

- ski-ramp there. I'm not too sure of the name of it. He had a - he was renting a house there. That was the only time.

Q. Who was he living with at that time, do you know?

A. With Lisa.Q. That was his wife?A. Yes.Q. Okay. And what about René Trudel, had you

ever been to his home?A. Yes, one time - a couple times.Q. A couple of times?A. Yes.Q. And what about Rick Trudel, had you ever been

to his home?A. Yes, once.Q. And where was he living at that time, sir?A. In Constance Bay.Q. Okay, where is Constance Bay?A. Out in the "boonies", in the west end, there.Q. Okay. How long did it take to drive there,

any idea?A. Probably, I don't know, an hour, three-

quarter (sic) of an hour or so.Q. Okay. And Constance Bay, is it actually on

the water?A. Yes.Q. Was his home on the water? I guess that's

what I'm asking.A. To tell you the truth, I'm not too sure.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10289.

Q. And was anyone else living there with him?A. I don't know if there was somebody living

there with him. It was only me and him when I was out - up there.

Q. Okay. And did something occur on that occasion, sir, that you haven't forgotten about?

A. Yes, it did.Q. What happened?A. A dog bite - his dog bit my hand.Q. Okay. I'm going to try and help you out with

the date, sir. His dog bit your hand. What were you doing when the dog bit your hand?

A. Just getting up to go and get a beer in the fridge.

Q. A beer guard dog?THE COURT: Good job you weren't going for a scotch!MR. COOPER: Q. And what happened to you when

you got this dog bite?A. Well, he bit me, and then I had to go to the

hospital.Q. Okay, how did you get to the hospital?A. Richard Trudel.Q. Okay. I'm going to show you a document, sir.

Which hospital did you go to?A. Carleton - Carleton Hospital, there.Q. Queensway-Carleton?A. Yeah.Q. Okay, do you recall seeing this document on a

previous occasion, sir, when you testified?A. Yes.Q. Okay. Referred to previously as 193, Your

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10289.

Honour, for sake of consistency. And the date and time is on the document, sir. And I don't know if your eyes are any better than mine. These are bifocals but they clearly should have another magnitude to them. The date appears to be the 13th of April 1990 at four in the morning. Would that be about right?

A. Yes.MR. COOPER: Okay. Could that be the next numbered exhibit.COURT REGISTRAR: Exhibit 224, Your Honour.THE COURT: Obviously the dog thought both of them should be in bed.EXHIBIT NUMBER 224: Medical record from the Queensway-Carleton Hospital dated April 13, 1990 - Produced and marked.MR. COOPER: Q. Do you recall that dog's name,

sir?A. Yes, it was Thunder.Q. Thunder?A. Yeah.Q. Did you ever see Thunder again?A. No.Q. Did you have - what kind of dog was Thunder?A. It was a Rottweiler.Q. A Rottweiler. Did you ever have occasion to

own such a dog yourself, sir?A. Yes.Q. And where did you get that - your Rottweiler

from?A. From Rick Trudel.Q. From Rick Trudel. And was it before or after

this 4th of April incident?

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10289.

A. It was before.Q. And when you got your dog, what size was it?A. It was just a pup.Q. Okay, and where did you pick it up?A. Right next to my place, there, in front of

Jim Sauvé's mother's place.Q. Okay, Jim Sauvé's mother lived in your

neighbourhood?A. Yes.Q. Okay. And how much did you pay for this dog?

What was the arrangement there?A. Well, I had picked up the dog and I had paid

René Trudel for the dog.Q. Okay, you paid René Trudel for the dog, and

what was the cost of the dog?A. I think it was 300 or 400. Close to that,

anyways.Q. Do you still have that dog?A. No.Q. Did you have it for a long period of time?A. For about a year and a half.Q. Did anybody else besides Rick Trudel - he had

Thunder - you had your dog - what was your dog's name?A. Champ.Q. Champ?A. Yes.Q. You had Champ, he had Thunder. Did anybody

else among you have any other Rottweilers?A. Yeah, Jim Sauvé had one too.Q. Okay, do you recall his dog's name?A. I think it was Damian or something. I'm not

too sure.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10289.

Q. And did....THE COURT: I'm sorry, I didn't really hear that.THE WITNESS: Damian.THE COURT: Damian. Okay.MR. COOPER: Q. Do you recall seeing Damian?A. Yes.Q. And where did you see that dog?A. In the project where I used to live, at 143

Beausoleil.Q. Any other Rottweilers?A. Ti-Guy Trudel had one too.Q. Did Paolo ever have one?A. No.Q. And all these dogs were - what was the source

of them? Where were they coming from?A. From Richard's dogs.Q. Okay. Now, how well did you know Jim Sauvé?A. Not too much, just from Rick Trudel.Q. Okay. Were either of these - where did Rick

Trudel live at the time that you were dealing with him?A. I don't know, I think it was in Constance

Bay, there. That's the only place I knew where he lived, but the other place, I don't know.

Q. Did he ever live down in your neighbourhood?A. I don't think so, but he was around there

pretty much.Q. And what about Mr. Sauvé, was he around there

at all in your neighbourhood?A. Yes, he was.Q. Now, when Paolo Trudel died, sir, did you owe

him any money?

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10289.

A. No - uh, yes, for a truck.Q. For a truck?A. Yes.Q. And how did you come to owe Mr. Paolo Trudel

for a truck?A. I had borrowed 2500 from him to buy a truck.Q. Okay.A. And I had paid him, but 400 - I still had 400

to give him when he died.Q. Okay. Now, you stopped dealing with him for

cocaine, as you said, about a month before he died. Had you made any payments on your truck in that period of time, in that last month?

A. I can't - I'm not too sure if there was.Q. And did you ever pay anybody the remainder or

the balance of that $400?A. Yes, I did.Q. And how did that come about?A. I gave it to René Trudel.Q. And did you tell him who to give it to?A. Yeah, I told him to give it to Rick.Q. Okay, and why did you tell René Trudel to

give the $400 that you owed to Paolo to Rick Trudel?A. Because Rick was collecting for Paolo.Q. Okay, and when you paid Rick Trudel for the

cocaine that you were getting from him after Paolo's death, who did you physically pay?

A. René Trudel.Q. Okay. And this arrangement with René as the

in-between guy, who made that arrangement with you?A. It's Rick that sent René to me.Q. Okay. What is meant by a "runner", sir, in

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10289.

the drug world?A. He's the one that delivers for the big

dealer.Q. Okay, and does René Trudel - does he fit in

that category?A. Yes.Q. Okay. Now, you don't stop using cocaine, you

said, until January 1995. Who were you getting it from, up until that point?

A. Sometimes from Richard Demers, the brother of my common-law wife.

Q. Your brother-in-law.A. Yeah, my brother-in-law.Q. Okay. Did you get any other drugs from him,

from Richard Demers?A. What do you mean?Q. Drugs other than cocaine?A. No, it was just cocaine.Q. Okay. Now, we've had evidence before this

court that, on the 1st of August 1990, Richard Trudel is arrested on drug matters.

A. Yes.Q. When do you stop dealing with Richard Trudel

for drugs?A. Right at the time, there, just before he got

picked up.Q. Okay. Now, do you end up having any

conversation, sir - or when do you have your first conversation with a police officer about this case?

A. It was in 1990.Q. Okay. Do you recall, was it before or after

Richard Trudel was arrested for the drugs?

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10289.

A. I'm not too sure if he was in or just before. I'm not too sure.

Q. Would it assist you, sir, to review any of the materials you have before you?

A. Yes.MR. COOPER: Now, for the record, Your Honour, the materials in question are officers' notes and they're only of value to the witness.MR. COOPER: Q. And, Mr. Sigouin, I would ask

you, they're only of value to you if they refresh your memory. It's your memory that we're interested in.

MS. MULLIGAN: I'm prepared to admit, if it helps, Mr. Cooper, that - on behalf of Mr. Stewart, at least - that the interview with Mr. Sigouin was July 30th, 1990. MR. McKECHNIE: The first interview.MR. COOPER: Mr. McKechnie is making a like admission, Your Honour, so that does help me.THE COURT: All right, so July 30th, 1990, was the first interview.MR. COOPER: Yes.THE COURT: Thank you.MR. COOPER: Q. So it's two days before Richard

Trudel's arrest that you have an interview with the police.A. Yes.Q. Okay. And who are the police this time?A. Rick Riddell and Heather.Q. Heather Lamarche and Rick Riddell?A. Yeah.Q. Okay. And do you give them much information

that first time?A. No.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10289.

Q. Do you tell them everything you've told us now?

A. No.Q. Do you recall anything that you did tell

them?A. Yes, they were just friends and it was "Hi"

and "Bye".Q. And who was just friends and it was "Hi" and

"Bye"?A. Jim Sauvé and Rick Trudel.Q. Okay. Was that really an accurate

description of your relationship with Mr. Trudel?A. No.Q. We've been through an accurate description

just now, I suppose, have we?A. Yes.Q. Okay. So that's your first conversation with

the police. And what do you do right after that? Do you tell anyone about it?

A. Yes, I did, to René Trudel.Q. So the police come to see you, and what were

they asking you about?A. About if I had - if I knew Rick Riddell and

Jim Sauvé.Q. Okay. And what was this in connection with?A. For the murder of Manon and Michel Giroux.Q. Okay. And when you talked to René Trudel,

what do you tell him the police were interested in?A. For - to - that they had shown me pictures of

his brother Rick Trudel and Jim Sauvé.Q. Yes, and what about....A. For the murder of Manon and Michel Giroux.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10289.

Q. So you tell René about that how soon after the police have been there?

A. Next day or something like that.Q. Now, do you have any more contact with the

police before the arrest of the four individuals charged with the murder?

A. No, I don't think so. Q. Okay.A. That was the only time.Q. They're arrested in December of 1990. When

is your next contact with the police, do you know, sir?A. It was at January the 3rd, '91.Q. Okay. And is that actually your first

statement as opposed to interview?A. Yeah - no, I did wrote a statement on the

first one. Q. Okay.A. I think so. I'm not too sure. Yeah. Yes, I

did wrote a statement on the first one.Q. Do you recall signing it, sir?A. I don't recall signing it.Q. Okay. So you don't see the police for - from

July 30th until January of the following year.A. Yes.Q. Of 1991.A. Yeah.Q. Then, sir, do you tell the police everything

you know that you told us today?A. No.Q. Now, I'm not going to get into, in any

detail, what in fact you tell them, at this point in time, but when do you next see the police?

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10289.

A. January the 8th, '91.Q. So it's about five days later.A. Yeah.Q. Okay, first of all, I should ask you, sir,

the police that you see on the 3rd of January '91 and the police you see on the next occasion on the 8th of January 1991, is this Lamarche or Riddell or is it somebody else?

A. No, it was Chevalier and - but it's not written here but I'm pretty - the one - no, it's Fortier.

MS. MULLIGAN: I have no problem if Mr. Cooper wants to lead on the officers....MR. COOPER: Okay.THE COURT: All right.MS. MULLIGAN: It's not really an issue.MR. COOPER: Q. So on this occasion, sir, the

3rd of January '91, and then subsequently five days later, it's Officers Fortier and Chevalier?

A. Chevalier, yeah.Q. Okay. And you've referred to those officers

as the "French guys" before.A. Yes.Q. Okay. Now, you've talked about what happens

on the 3rd, and when they come back five days later on the 8th, do they have some more information, sir...

A. Yeah.Q. ...or more questions for you?A. Yes.Q. And do you tell them everything you know

then?A. No.Q. Why don't you tell them everything you know,

sir?

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10289.

A. Well, I wasn't the type of people (sic) to speak - to say everything. Like, you know, I was a dealer myself so....

Q. Hmm?A. I was a dealer myself, so.Q. Okay, you were a dealer yourself, and how did

that affect you?A. Well, I didn't want to talk, I didn't want to

- you know, they were my friends and....Q. Who was your friend, sir?A. Rick Trudel and Jim Sauvé.Q. So you didn't want to talk about your

friends, Rick Trudel and Jim Sauvé. The fact you were a drug dealer, does that add anything extra to it?

A. Yes, I was scared. Like, you know, I didn't want to - I didn't want to brag about it.

Q. You didn't want to brag about it?A. Yeah.Q. Okay. Is there any other reason, sir, that

you didn't tell the police everything you knew on the first two times that they saw you?

A. Yeah, because I was nervous and I wasn't ready to give everything out.

Q. Okay. What were you nervous about?A. Well, being a "rat" and whatever - all -

whatever. My thinking was just like, you know....Q. So you don't tell them everything on the 8th

of January. Do you know when your next contact with them was, sir? That was the 8th of January '91.

A. It was the 21st of October '92.Q. Okay. Do you recall which officers it was in

October - the 21st of October '92?

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10289.

A. It was Rick Riddell and Heather Lamarche.Q. Okay. Had you seen them since that July 1990

interview?A. No.Q. Okay. And that July 1990 interview, that's

the one where you told them that - regarding Rick Trudel and Jim Sauvé were just "Hi-Bye", you didn't really know them.

A. Yes.Q. Okay, so now they're coming to see you a

little more than a couple of years later - the same two officers this time - and does anything unusual happen during the course of that interview, sir? First of all, where does it take place, do you recall?

A. In Orléans.Q. Okay. And do you recall where in Orléans it

took place?A. It's at the shopping centre there in Orléans.Q. At Place D'Orléans?A. Place D'Orléans, yeah.Q. Okay, and what kind of setting was it, sir?A. It's just a little office they got in there,

in the mall.Q. Okay. Where did you meet the police?A. They came - they were at my work when I got

to my work.Q. Okay. Is that at the beginning of the day or

the end of the day or...?A. At the end of the day.Q. Okay. So at the end of your work day, they

meet you at your work. And is that near Place D'Orléans?A. No, that's in Carlsbad Spring (sic). My

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10289.

work is in Carlsbad Spring.Q. Okay. And are you arrested or anything, sir?A. No.Q. Okay. How do you get from Carlsbad Springs

to Place D'Orléans?A. I followed them with my car.Q. You followed them in your car.A. Yes.Q. Okay, and what happened? Just describe the

interview, sir? Not so much what was said but how was it conducted?

A. It was pretty rough, there. Screaming and hitting on desk and....

Q. Okay, you say "they" were screaming? Did Heather Lamarche scream?

A. No, not Heather.Q. Okay. The other one would be Riddell, then.A. Yes.Q. Okay. Now, you said - and he was "hitting on

the desk". How many times did he actually hit on the desk?A. Once or twice.Q. Okay. How did the interview start out? Was

there screaming right from the start?A. No, they just - they wanted more information

and I knew that - supposedly that there was a statement that was already out on the street that I had signed.

Q. Okay.A. And I was - didn't want to say nothing, and

he just started flipping, there.Q. Okay. So let's just back up and describe

that in a little bit of detail, if we could. You say you knew

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10289.

there was a statement of yours out on the street?A. Yes.Q. How did you know that?A. From....MS. MULLIGAN: Your Honour, before the witness answers, I'd like to speak to Your Honour.THE COURT: All right, members of the jury. Perhaps, members of the jury, you could probably take the lunch because it will probably take five or seven minutes to talk about this, at least, so what the heck, eh?...JURY RETIRES (12:45 p.m.)

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10289.

--- In the absence of the jury

MR. COOPER: I think you're going for lunch too, Mr. Sigouin.THE COURT: Yes, you're going for lunch too.THE COURT: Yes, Ms. Mulligan....Witness leaves the courtroomMS. MULLIGAN: This, Your Honour, if I can recall, is the evidence about - Mr. Sigouin will give about Ti-Guy Trudel coming to him and showing - or not showing, telling him that he had - he had Mr. Sigouin's statement at his house, and Mr. Sigouin gives varying accounts of what occurred. On some occasions, he says that he was called a "rat" by Mr. Ti-Guy Trudel and told not to make any statements or not to talk to the police - warned. On other occasions, he says he was just told that he didn't have to talk to the police. At other times, Mr. Sigouin says he wasn't called a "rat", he wasn't threatened at all. Ti-Guy just let him know that he knew that he had given a statement to the police and wanted to know why. There's all kinds of different accounts on that. Regardless of the account, the problem with the evidence, in my submission, is that Ti-Guy Trudel - again, we have this authority kind of problem. How is Ti-Guy Trudel's actions admissible against these men? It's not. I know my friend wants it in for this witness's state of mind but we have to deal with the other issue, which is the prejudice. Ti-Guy Trudel is, even on cross,


10304.

doing something - saying something to Mr. Sigouin about his statement to the police. That is going to be difficult for the jury not to infer that that's on behalf of Richard Trudel and the other gentleman; that it's some kind of warning to him to keep his mouth shut, from them. And by this time, of course, we're dealing with 1992, when the accused would've had some statements. I can't tell you off the top of my head what they had with respect to Mr. Sigouin, I don't know - maybe my friends can be of more assistance - but, in my submission, in order to avoid the kind of prejudice that may otherwise result that these gentlemen or any one of them had Ti-Guy Trudel out there threatening witnesses - because there is no evidence of that; no evidence of a connection; that there was some "please go do this" or authority to go do this on their behalf. It is sufficient, in my submission, if this gentleman is allowed to testify that - as he's just done, that he knew his statement was circulating out there somewhere in the criminal community and that he was aware that Rick Trudel - or not Rick Trudel - that some of the Trudels - I guess Ti-Guy Trudel knew about his statement. But to go any further is to do prejudice to these gentlemen that simply there isn't a connection there. We're making the actions of Ti-Guy Trudel prejudicial to these gentlemen's fair trial and it's not necessary for this witness's state of mind. It is enough, in my submission,


10304.

that he says that he was aware - if he says that he was aware that Ti-Guy Trudel knew about his statement to the police and he knew his statement was - or news of his statement was circulating in the community - the drug community where he lived and where he did his drug-dealing. But to go any further is to cause much prejudice, and I think that that is the reasonable way to deal with it, to limit the prejudice, because we're going a long way down the road to have any inference drawn on the basis of Ti-Guy's action against these two gentlemen. So it limits the prejudice and it gets in Mr. Cooper - what Mr. Cooper needs for state of mind - why this witness was reluctant, at this point in time, to speak - that it was sometime around this point in time that he became aware that Ti-Guy knew of his statement. And really, at the end of the day, given the varying things that Mr. Sigouin has said about what Ti-Guy Trudel was supposed to have said to him about this, that probably is the cleanest way for the evidence to come out for the Crown as opposed to: "He said it was a rat; he said - he said I was a rat; he didn't say that; he threatened me; he didn't threaten me; he told me to keep my mouth shut; no, he told me I didn't have to speak to the police; no, he just asked me why." That's about where that evidence comes down to, in the end. So, in my submission, the way to deal with it is as I've proposed.MR. COOPER: If I could deal with some of the


10304.

facts. Oh, after Mr. McKechnie.MR. McKECHNIE: I agree with Ms. Mulligan.THE COURT: All right.MR. COOPER: Okay. Your Honour, dealing with the facts, first of all, there are not a host of different accounts, and if there were, that's cross-examination. My suggestion is go for it, but make sure it's accurate because we'll be - we'll be looking for that. In terms of this conversation, there are not a host of different accounts. Now, this witness is never perfectly consistent on anything over the nine years or whatever it is he's been chatting with the police. There's not a rote consistency involved in this. This is human interaction, it's testimony, and it's just not perfectly consistent. But there isn't a raft of accounts - different accounts - and if there was, that's Ms. Mulligan's job to challenge that with the weapon of cross-examination, which is designed specifically for this task. Ms. Mulligan says it's inadmissible evidence against these gentlemen. It's not against these gentlemen, to begin with. She already has predicted the relevance of this evidence. It's this witness's state of mind. This witness will be cross-examined today extensively about how the police were pounding the table and raising their voice; how the police hunted them down like a hawk, again and again and again, to get him to say something to the police. That's one component. I mean, that's all relevant in its


10304.

true form. It's all relevant to how the evidence comes out. It comes out in dribs and drabs. He's addressed that barely thus far. We're going to explore that in some greater depth before the examination in-chief is concluded. But he doesn't give everything out on the first time, the fifth time or the tenth time. It just doesn't happen that way. And one of the reasons it doesn't happen this way - that way, rather - is because he's terrified of Ricky Trudel. He says that almost - I'd say in at least half the statements, it starts out that way. And here's the notes from this statement, because this is what's relevant right at the moment:

"Advised he wasn't too happy to be looking (sic) to us - talking to us. Statement he gave was all over his project. Shown by Guy Trudel (Ti-Guy). Lamarche took notes. He didn't want any statement."

So he doesn't even sign a statement, at this point in time. That's how terrified he is. When he goes to see - I'm sorry, not "when he goes to see" - when the two "Frenchmen", as he refers to them, come to see him on the 8th of January, the question - the very first question: "Can you assist us with some questions we want answered?

Yes, but I'm afraid. I have a family to take care of and the guys in jail have outside people."


10304.

And that's, of course, from January 1991. He's still afraid in October 1992. And the intervening event which has increased his fear, which has assisted in choking his co-operation with the police and restricting - it's a bottleneck of disclosure - is his fear of the Trudel organization. It doesn't reflect on Mr. Stewart. It doesn't reflect on Mr. Mallory at all. What it reflects on, what it's 100 percent relevant to, is this gentleman's state of mind, and it's - the paramount issue here for cross-examination will be why this gentleman didn't give full disclosure to the police at his first opportunity or his second or tenth opportunity. Ms. Mulligan says that Ti-Guy Trudel had no authority. Well, we don't know that, to begin with. But supposing it's true, I would be prepared to say that he was not being directed by Mr. Mallory, and Ti-Guy Trudel was not being directed by Robert Stewart. I'm prepared to make that assumption - that admission, for what it's worth, on the record right now, as soon as the jury returns. That's not what it's relevant to. What it's relevant to - and there's no - in my respectful submission, no balancing of prejudice and probity involved here because the - or I mean it's involved but the probity is so incredibly weighty that the prejudice - if it was prejudicial, it was prejudicial in the previous trial where it was admitted. It's not - Ms. Mulligan says no but, with respect, the thing that wasn't addressed in the last


10304.

trial was the conversation with Rick Trudel personally at the jail. And that's something that I've told her that I'm not going to get into without consultation - without giving her notice, not consultation - with notice to Ms. Mulligan, and I'll address that with - consider that, rather, with - in consultation with Officer Ralko at the luncheon recess. That's two different things. This one is what's preventing this witness from giving the disclosure to the police, and that is something that just can't be underestimated. And it's patently evident. It's not something that I'm asking for an inference to be drawn from it, it's in the notes. It's in the previous statement. I assume Ms. Mulligan is going to get into those sorts of things in cross-examination. If she does, of course, I'll be exploring them in more depth in re-examination. But the fear is out there. It's palpable, it's demonstrative, and it's recorded contemporaneously. It is, in my respectful submission - and this is an inference - the biggest single factor that's operating on this witness in terms of his reluctance to co-operate with the police. The other factors that he's mentioned thus far also are operating in conjunction with the fear of Mr. Trudel, but the fear of Mr. Trudel, in my respectful submission, is the one that's demonstrable and recorded by various officers in various notes and/or statements. That's the one that's most


10304.

palpable. I think Mr. Dandyk has something to say about - oh, maybe I'm not finished. Those are all my submissions on the facts - these facts Your Honour. THE COURT: All right.MR. COOPER: Mr. Dandyk may have something to say about the legal stuff.MR. DANDYK: Well, Your Honour, actually, I think it's already been said. I mean, credibility is critical with this witness, and his credibility is directly affected by this. Ms. Mulligan's attempt to try and change what happened as to his state of mind - obviously, when somebody walks up to me and directly talks to me and threatens me, effectively, I'm going to be a little more afraid than knowing my statement is out there or some fear. I mean, that's so common sense it's not even funny. Obviously, the court, I expect, will be saying, in effect, it is as it affects this witness's state of mind and that's why they're hearing it. And I suppose as well - maybe I'll clarify with Mr. Cooper. ...Discussion between counselMR. DANDYK: Because I mean it could be clarified that there will be no direct evidence led of involvement by Rick Trudel or these accused, and that could even be done in the questioning, I suppose.MR. COOPER: In this incident.MR. DANDYK: Yes, in this instance, of course. I mean...


10304.

THE COURT: Obviously the conversation....MR. DANDYK: ...the other is obviously clear because he is called to the jail and so on. That has different ramifications. But with respect, that's - and that's obviously highly probative. And as is clear before in this witness's testimony, credibility is central, and he will be attacked on his credibility, and obviously his fears, et cetera. I mean, it - so the probity is in fact so huge it's not - any prejudice can be addressed, as I said, from comments from the bench and/or clarification by Mr. Cooper.MS. MULLIGAN: Just to clarify a couple of factual points, Your Honour. The reason I was saying no during Mr. Cooper's submissions on one point was in an effort to assist. I've read through all of the evidence of the last trial and I've now gone through the computer and I can find nowhere where Mr. Sigouin was indeed asked about this at all at the last trial. I don't know whether the trial judge at that proceeding made a ruling or not, but unless I'm mistaken, I can find nowhere where Ti-Guy Trudel and his involvement in this statement issue was at the last trial. And I see Detective Ralko looking, so maybe he'll be able to assist me. But, in any event, that's one issue, and....THE COURT: The only ruling I remember in the last trial was giving the Crown permission to cross-examine. That's the only ruling that I remember, so you're working with a tabula rasa


10304.

here.MS. MULLIGAN: Yes. That's the only one I had in mind as well, Your Honour, so I'm not - I'm not sure. But I didn't see anything in there indicating - in the last trial indicating that he was asked about Ti-Guy Trudel and this statement issue, although, as I say, I stand to be corrected. It sounds like the other issue that's going to come up fairly soon is the issue of conversations with Rick Trudel that this gentleman may have had and whether they're admissible against - against Mr. Stewart and Mr. Mallory, even as they go to state of mind. So I don't know whether Your Honour wishes to deal with those now or whether we should come back maybe a little early and deal with that as well. I don't know about the staff, whether they want to....THE COURT: Well....MS. MULLIGAN: Whether to do it now or later.THE COURT: I think we should just come back at the regular time because of the problems we have with the accused sometimes in getting lunch and all that sort of stuff.MS. MULLIGAN: Oh yes, that's true.THE COURT: The only one who worries about people getting lunch is the judge, never the lawyers - please note. All right.MS. MULLIGAN: Oh, I should - oh, the other point, Your Honour, just before we break. The other point I want to make, with respect to Mr. Cooper saying that this was crucial what he said


10304.

on this date about the statement, Mr. Cooper, of course, when he re-examined Mr. Sigouin at the last proceedings, was asking about his conversation with Rick Riddell and Heather Lamarche, and Mr. Sigouin answered in re-examination to the Crown:

"When I was with Rick Riddell and Heather, there were some things I said that I don't really remember now. But I mean there's some things I said but I said them just because I wanted to get out of there. I was fed up."

And if we go back to - you would have to go back through the cross but it's clear that he indicates that he doesn't - he doesn't think that he said he was threatened, and he doesn't say that he was called a "rat". In any event, in my submission, I've made - I've made my submissions. I think there is a line to be drawn and it can be sawed off and a measure of compromise can be had so as to protect the fair trial.THE COURT: Do you want to finish off with those other matters, then? I didn't really understand your point there, by the way. What did you want to talk about at one o'clock?MS. MULLIGAN: Oh, I'm sorry, I understand my friend may wish to - I want to give him some time to consider it further - he may wish to try and lead evidence that after the arrest of - after the arrest on the murder or the charge


10304.

against Mr. Trudel, Mr. Trudel called Mr. Sigouin and asked him to come to the jail and meet him there with his - with Mr. Trudel's girlfriend, and then we get the varying versions of that, whether Mr. Trudel told Mr. Sigouin to keep his mouth shut or asked him why he was talking to the police or wanted to know what he had said to the police. And I understand my friend may wish to lead that. As well, Your Honour should be aware of a conversation that took place. The witness has testified that René Trudel - he spoke to René Trudel in July of 1990, after the police spoke with him, and let him know that the police were showing him photographs of Rick Trudel and James Sauvé and it's in relation to this murder. There is a conversation within days of that between Rick Trudel and Mr. Sigouin wherein he tells - Rick Trudel phoned to find out what it's all about. Mr. Sigouin tells him and Rick Trudel says: "Well, I didn't do it so I have nothing to worry about" - or words to that effect. So those are two conversations with Mr. Trudel.THE COURT: I assume that the Crown's position now is that those are all kept in the - kept in the arsenal and you're not - we're not dealing with those now. You don't want to deal with those now?MR. COOPER: No, I'm going to have a chat with Officer Ralko and get some more factual information crammed into my head, Your Honour, pertaining to those. I've already told Ms.


10304.

Mulligan that at least the fact of the meeting is relevant - is not hearsay - and we'll be proceeding from that basis. But what we're going to explore about what was said or what we're going to choose - largely it will be a tactical decision - strategic decision, not an admissibility decision.THE COURT: I see. All right.MR. COOPER: So it's premature, I guess.THE COURT: All right. I have the central point. I'll make a ruling when I come back.

R E C E S S (13:05 p.m.)U P O N R E S U M I N G: (14:20 p.m.)

RULING

McWILLIAM, J. (Orally):I might indicate, with respect to the ruling before lunch, I am satisfied that the Crown's perspective on this matter is the correct one. The relevance to the credibility of this particular witness is important and perhaps explanatory. I also think that limiting instructions with respect to the use to be made of the evidence would be effective in this case because it seems to me that it would be the ultimate fairness not to attribute any of these matters to these accused, since there is no direct evidence really linking Rick Trudel except the meeting, and we will deal with that


10304.

at a later time. But even as the matter now stands, it seems to me that linking the matter to these accused, in terms of their authority, is a direction which this jury would accept. So, for those reasons, I think that the Crown should proceed, the evidence going to this witness's state of mind, and to the way his evidence unfolded to the Crown and to the police.MR. COOPER: Thank you, Your Honour. THE COURT: Bring in the jury, please.

**********

Ruling

McWilliam, J.

10314.



THE COURT: Mr. Cooper.MR. COOPER: Thank you, Your Honour.

EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. COOPER: (continues)Q. Mr. Sigouin, just before we left, we were

speaking of - you were speaking of your - you had information your statement was on the street, and we're going to deal with that, but I'd just like to make sure we get the chronology, the sequence, the order in which things happened, down first. We've gone over most of this so it will just be getting us back up to where we left off. The 30th of July is when you spoke to Lamarche and Riddell - 30th of July '90.

A. Yes.Q. You said that. You also told us that, very

shortly after that, you spoke to René Trudel.A. Yes.Q. And what exactly did you tell René about the

police being there to interview you?A. That the police were at my place and they had

shown me photos of Rick Trudel and Jim Sauvé.Q. And what about - the police were there, you

said, about the murder. Did you tell that to René?A. Yes.Q. Okay. And then the next thing in the order

in which they happened is that the fellows you call the two French guys, Fortier and Marion, come and see you on the 3rd, and then the 8th of January '91, right?

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10319.

A. Yes.Q. Okay, that's where we left off, and we had

just gotten into the next time you see Riddell and Lamarche, which is in October of 1992, correct?

A. Yes.Q. That's where we left off. The 21st of

October '92. And now you were explaining to us that, at some point in time, you received information about your statement being on the street. You had given statements to the two French guys.

A. Yes.Q. Okay. What information did you receive, sir,

about your statement being on the street? How did that happen?A. That Ti-Guy Trudel told me that I had wrote a

statement and he had it at his place.Q. Okay. Ti-Guy Trudel told you that you had

written a statement and he had it at his place. Did you - what did you say to that?

A. Well, I said I didn't write no statement and he said: "Yes, you did, because I have it at my place".

Q. Okay, and you had in fact written a statement.

A. Yes.Q. So you lied to Guy.A. Yes.Q. And did he say anything else about your

reputation?A. Yeah, he called me a "rat".Q. Okay. Now, how did this affect you, sir?A. Well, I didn't like it at all because they

told me that it was confidential. Like, you know, there was -

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10319.

and when I seen that it was on the street - they had told me it was - one of my statement (sic) were on the street, that's why I didn't want to say nothing no more.

Q. Okay, who told you it was confidential?A. That Lamarche (sic) - those two Frenchmens

(sic) there.Q. The two Frenchmen told you that your

statement was confidential?A. Yes.Q. And then you find out - well, Ti-Guy Trudel

tells you that you've made one and he's got it at home.A. Yes.Q. Do you know if he had one at all, sir?A. No, I don't know.Q. Okay. But you say you didn't like this, and

how did that affect your state of mind - how you were thinking about this?

A. Well, I was scared.Q. Okay.THE COURT: This may be a good opportunity, members of the jury, now that state of mind has been brought up, you'll notice the witness is saying what Ti-Guy was telling him. That evidence of what he's told is considered hearsay from one aspect. But going to his state of mind, it can be considered as to how it affected his state of mind, but not for the proof of the truth of it, okay? In other words, it isn't any proof of what was said in the statement - of the content of the statement - but it is evidence going to how it affected this witness and his state of mind, the steps he took and what he

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10319.

did. So that's the purpose for that. It's the same thing we did before with Detective Lamarche, you may recall, with a good part of her evidence. All right.MR. COOPER: Thank you, Your Honour.MR. COOPER: Q. And how did this affect your co-

operation with the police, sir?A. I didn't want to say nothing no more.Q. Okay. And then we have, after this -

sometime after this conversation with Ti-Guy Trudel comes the interview with Lamarche and Riddell on the 21st of October '92.

A. Yes.Q. Okay. Now, that's the interview we were just

about to discuss. We just talked about it briefly, how Riddell, you said, popped or flipped or something.

A. Yes.Q. Now, originally - and we reviewed this this

morning - you said that you had told Riddell and Lamarche that you just knew these two guys, Sauvé and Trudel, for "Hi-Bye", that sort of thing.

A. Yes.Q. And you told us that wasn't - obviously

wasn't true.A. Yes.Q. And this is your next encounter with them. Do you tell them a great deal of information on

that encounter, sir, in that office at Place D'Orléans? Do you tell them everything you know?

A. No.Q. Just jumping ahead a little bit. I'm going

to come back to this, but do you ever tell the police everything you know until you ended up testifying?

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10319.

A. No.Q. Okay. And there are other contacts with the

police after this Lamarche and Riddell...A. Yes.Q. ...contact in '92?A. Yes.Q. Okay. So when the interview at Place

D'Orléans started, how did it start out? Were you offered a beverage or anything like that - a drink?

A. Yes, I was offered a coffee.Q. Okay. Did it start out aggressively, like

you've described, with the hand pounding, or did that come later?

A. No, it was only me and Heather in the office and then Rick came in, and I had told Heather that I didn't want to testify because I had a statement out on the street, and that's when it occurred.

Q. Okay. Describe for us as best you can - you told us that you just told Heather this business about you didn't want to testify because there was a statement out on the street. And then where is Riddell when you say this to Heather?

A. He was out to get a drink or something.Q. Okay, and he comes in the room, and is he

made aware of this, what you've just said?A. Yes, Heather told him that I didn't want to

testify because of the statement.Q. I didn't hear that.A. Because of the statement that was....Q. Oh, because of the statement. And describe

what Riddell does.A. Then he flipped.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10319.

Q. How did he flip?A. Well, started punching on the desk.Q. Okay.A. And saying that: "You're going to have to

talk - to say, you know, what you know". And I didn't want to be there. Like, you know, after I seen that, I didn't want to be there, I just wanted to leave.

Q. Okay. And did you leave or did you stick around for a bit longer?

A. I stuck around for a bit longer.Q. Okay. And you said he - you told me before

lunch that he hit the table once or twice.A. Yes. Twice.Q. Did he hit you?A. No, no, he didn't hit me.Q. Okay. You say his voice was raised - or you

said he was yelling, I think, was your words this morning. Did he yell at you for ten sentences or one sentence or how long did it last?

A. It lasted too long, but it was a couple of minutes, there.

Q. And were you surprised to be treated like this by a police officer?

A. Yes, I was.Q. Okay. You said you wanted to get out of

there. Did you tell him all you knew that time, then?A. No.Q. What, in fact, did you do instead?A. I just coped with him. He showed me a sheet

of dates.Q. Yes.A. Which I didn't remember dates at all. I'm

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10319.

not too good in dates. And - but I wasn't paying no attention or nothing, I just wanted to get out of there.

Q. Okay, and you have encounters after that with the police again.

A. Yes.Q. Okay. Now, my question, sir, is Riddell was

being a bit of a jerk that day.A. He was, yeah.Q. Did that cause you to say anything that

wasn't true?A. No.Q. Actually, I'll come back to that if necessary

later. Have you seen Riddell since?A. Yes.Q. Has he ever been a jerk since that to you?A. No.Q. Okay. Were any of the other officers that

you've dealt with over the number of years that you've had interviews - were any of them impolite to you?

A. No.Q. Did you find it convenient or inconvenient,

sir, when the police interviewed you after this point in time?A. Can...?Q. Maybe I'll just rephrase it.A. Okay.Q. After this, you had other interviews with the

police?A. Yes.Q. Is that something you were - looked forward

to?A. No.Q. Okay. Is this something you wanted to do?

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10319.

A. No, I didn't want to do it, no.Q. Were you aware whether you had the right to

tell him to leave?A. Yes, I did.Q. You did have that right?A. Yes.Q. Were you aware of it?A. Yes.Q. Did you ever tell him to leave?A. No.Q. Now, you had told - we're going to go over

some phone records. I'm going to try and make this as painless as possible for everyone, Your Honour, and everyone knows how I get into documents and bore everyone to tears. But we've got what is Exhibit 141 in these proceedings, and you have a summary chart of that, sir?

A. Yes.Q. We've reviewed that this morning?A. Yes.MR. COOPER: And I have some other copies, Your Honour, and I've distributed them to my friends as well. I'll pass this one up to the court. I think I have 12 copies. First, let me count them. And I have a ruler. MR. COOPER: Q. So we'll go through these very -

well, as quickly as circumstances will permit, sir, and I'll ask you to confirm or correct the information on the chart. Now, we've heard information that this - oh, first of all, I should ask you, your phone number at the relevant time, sir - there's a phone number indicated as 235-0195. Do you recognize that phone number?

A. Yes.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10319.

Q. And whose phone number was that at the relevant time frame?

A. That was at my resident (sic).Q. That was at your residence?A. Yeah.Q. Okay. Now, going over these documents, sir,

the first call of interest and the number that's - well, the other number that's involved, Your Honour, for the record, is 613-724-0124. And the first call, sir, is call number 154, and it's from the 10th of November, and this is 1989, according to the records, is that correct?

A. Yes.Q. And it starts at 21:30 hours?A. Yes.Q. And it involves your phone number here, is

that correct, sir, 235-0195?A. Yes.Q. Okay. I'm going to shorten this up for

subsequent calls. We've got 11 of them to do. Number two is number - the second call, rather, is number 156 from the same date, the 10th of November, correct?

A. Yes.Q. At 21:54, and it involves your number, is

that correct, sir?A. Yes.Q. Okay. The third one is indicated to be call

number 200. It's on the 12th of November at 18:25, and again that's your phone number, 235-0195.

A. Yes.Q. Okay. The fourth one, sir, is in the next

package. I should indicate, Madam Registrar, the staples are coming loose on this. The fourth one is indicated to be number

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10319.

97 on the 8th of December at 20:27, and it involves your phone number, is that correct, sir?

A. Yes.Q. And the fifth one is indicated to be number

99, again on the 8th of December, at 20:37 this time, and it involves your phone number, is that correct, sir?

A. Yes.Q. Number six is - or the sixth call, rather -

is number 448, the 28th of December, at 13:21 hours, and it involves your phone number.

A. Yes.Q. Number seven - or the seventh call is number

451, again on the 28th of December, at 13:50, and it involves your telephone number.

A. Yes.Q. Number eight, sir, is on the 30th of

December. It's number 490, at 13:51 hours, and it involves your telephone number.

A. Yes.Q. And the ninth one is number 239. It's on the

17th of January, and now we're into 1990, correct?A. Yes.Q. And it's at 22:08, and again involves your

telephone number.A. Yes.Q. And the final two, number ten - or the tenth

call, rather - is number 603 on the 30th of January 1990 at 16:22 hours, and it involves your telephone number.

A. Yes.Q. And the 11th and final one is on the 30th of

January. It's number 611. It happens at 17:48 and it's your telephone number that's involved.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10319.

A. Yes.Q. And that all coincides with the document

that's entitled "Excerpts" from Exhibit 141?A. Yes.Q. Can I just take your copy, sir?A. Yeah.MR. COOPER: I would ask that the excerpts be the next numbered exhibit, Your Honour.COURT REGISTRAR: Exhibit 225, Your Honour.THE COURT: All right, Exhibit 22...,MR. COOPER: I'll return Exhibit 141.THE COURT: 225?COURT REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.THE COURT: Thank you.EXHIBIT NUMBER 225: Excerpts from Exhibit 141 - telephone records - Produced and marked.MS. MULLIGAN: Pardon-me, Mr. Cooper. Could I see the exhibit?MR. COOPER: Sure. And the 12 copies in the jury box, we'll just collect them at the next break, if that's all right.MR. COOPER: Q. Now, Riddell and Lamarche are in

possession of these 11 telephone calls in this period of time, sir - must, by the time they have the 21st of October '92 interview. It's quite obvious from those phone records that it's more than "Hi-Bye", your relationship with Mr. Trudel, correct?

A. Yes.Q. When Officer Riddell was pounding the desk a

couple of times and raising his voice, how did he appear?A. Pretty "pissed off".Q. I was going to use the word "frustrated"...

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10319.

A. Yeah.Q. ...but that's another way to go. Did that

last?A. No, it was just for a couple of minutes.Q. Okay. Now, I want to hop around just a

little bit, sir. One thing I usually do first, and I forgot to do it, is to take a look at your criminal record. Now, at the time - the first entry on here - let me just see. The first entry on here is 1993, in fact, is it not, sir?

A. Yes.Q. The 24th of April '93, and it's a driving

while ability impaired from Nepean Police Service, correct?A. Yes.Q. And that's your first criminal entry.A. Yes.Q. So at the time that you're first dealing with

the police officers, Riddell and Lamarche, for example, or even the two French guys, you don't yet have a criminal record.

A. No.Q. We'll continue with it, I guess. I'm not

going to do it in any kind of detail here. There's a care or control conviction in '93?

A. Yes.Q. A theft under in '94?A. Yes.Q. An assault in '94?A. Yes.Q. An impaired and a driving while disqualified

in '94?A. Yes.Q. A driving over 80 in Hull in '97?A. Yes.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10319.

Q. And that's accompanied by a driving disqualified, fail to comply with probation order and possession of a narcotic.

A. Yes.Q. Now, on the last thing, the Hull incident,

you ended up with a seven month conditional sentence order, is that correct, sir?

A. Yes.Q. And a number of other things, but they would

all be on the record. This is your criminal record?A. Yes.MR. COOPER: Okay. We'll just file that as an exhibit.THE COURT: 226.COURT REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, thank you.EXHIBIT NUMBER 226: Criminal record of Denis Sigouin - Produced and marked.MR. COOPER: Q. Oh, yes, the Hull convictions

there, sir, were from 1997, but you've indicated that you had stopped drinking and using cocaine, for that matter, in January of '95. Were they current charges in '97 or not?

A. That happened in May '95.Q. Okay. Is that the time when you fell off the

wagon?A. Yes.Q. Okay. There's a few tidying up questions,

sir. Not too much more, actually. Did you ever know any of the - any of the Trudel people, sir, to have any kind of a boat?

A. Yes.Q. Who had the boat?A. Paolo.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10319.

Q. And could you describe the boat for us, sir?A. It was a blue speedboat.Q. Any particular shade of blue?A. Just....Q. What type of blue paint?A. It was just blue with sparkles in it, there.Q. Okay. And where did you see this boat?A. I think it was in Lowertown in the parking

lot, sitting on a trailer.Q. Okay. Did you ever see it in the water?A. No.MR. COOPER: Could I just have a moment, please, Your Honour.THE COURT: Yes.MR. COOPER: I apologize, Your Honour. It seems we're going to have a - have to have a short discussion.THE COURT: All right, members of the jury....JURY RETIRES (14:45 p.m.)

**********

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10319.

--- In the absence of the jury

MR. COOPER: For the record, Mr. Sigouin has left the courtroom as well, Your Honour.THE COURT: Thank you.MR. COOPER: The area that I just informed Ms. Mulligan that I wanted to get into - and again, it's relevant to Mr. Sigouin's state of mind - but also it's relevant for the fact it's stated, and that is - or at least for the fact that there was a conversation. After this witness tells René Trudel that he's seen Lamarche and Riddell in July or maybe early on the 1st day of August 1990, sometime shortly thereafter that, he has a conversation with Rick Trudel, and Rick Trudel has an interest in what the police were asking about. Sometime probably later - he doesn't have a solid fix on the time - in fact, he's not sure whether he was wearing shorts or snowshoes - but he's called to the Detention Centre. Now, Ms. Mulligan presents the argument to me, at least - and I'm sure she'll flesh it out - that what is stated by Trudel to this witness is hearsay. But my position is the fact of the attendance there, being summonsed to the RDC, the fact of a conversation on the phone that pre-dates that, the questions that Mr. Trudel asks - and here's the subtlety here - the questions that Trudel asks are relevant for the fact they were stated. Mr. Trudel, for example, indicates something to the effect of: "What were the police doing? What were they asking


10332.

you? What did you say?" Now, the fact that those types of questions are asked is relevant. It's something the jury can draw an inference from as to Mr. Trudel's state of mind, for example. The fact that this witness is being questioned by Mr. Trudel along those lines can reflect on his own state of mind. And here's the subtlety, those questions are relevant for the fact they were stated. Mr. Trudel also, according to this witness, during the course of the conversation at the Detention Centre, says: "It's not me; we're going to keep this going; I personally didn't have anything to do with it", et cetera - protestations of innocence. Those are not relevant for the fact they were stated. There is no relevance there to hinge it on. So those ones are hearsay; they are excluded; they're not relevant on any other basis. Mr. Trudel himself could come here and give such explanations of non-involvement. But the fact of the questions that are asked - there's no truth to a question. I mean, conceivably, there could be. "I wasn't there and you know it, right?" That would have some truth component in it. But these questions are: "What did you do? What did you tell the police?", et cetera, et cetera. Those questions don't have a truth component to them but the fact that they were stated is something that is relevant to two different things: Trudel's state of mind and the state of mind of the witness himself. So that's the area that I'm seeking to go into. And, as I


10332.

say, the fact that the conversations happened are relevant themselves. It's more relevant, the fact that there were questions asked and what the questions were about. It's sort of a two-part exploration on my part as well. But the answers that are given - not the answers, but the statements that are given that do have a truth-falsity component about: "I didn't do it", that stuff is not relevant for the fact it is stated. So that's the interesting subtlety here in this type of conversation. Those are my submissions, in a nutshell.MS. MULLIGAN: It's an interesting subtlety, in my submission. Mr. Trudel's after-the-fact conduct, Mr. Trudel's state of mind, are not admissible against these gentlemen - are not admissible in evidence against these gentlemen and not relevant. These gentlemen's state of mind and their after-the-fact conduct may be admissible, but Mr. Trudel's is not - is not evidence in furtherance of any conspiracy, anything like that. It is after-the-fact conduct of Mr. Trudel. He's already been tried. But if Your Honour finds otherwise, to say that these questions taken out of context are relevant because you can draw the inference that Mr. Trudel is certainly curious about why the police are asking questions, I would be hard-pressed to find anyone who learned they were being investigated for a murder who weren't curious about what the police had to say. But, nevertheless, if Mr. Cooper thinks there's some


10332.

inference that can be drawn there against Mr. Trudel, and Your Honour thinks that that is admissible before this jury or rules it to be so, then I would submit that the entire conversations are indeed relevant to put it into context. He's asking these questions and at the same time he's saying, in both conversations: "I didn't do it; it's not me" - in both conversations, or words to that effect. So Mr. Cooper wants the inference that he's certainly concerned about the police investigating and is curious, but doesn't want the inference that at the same time he's saying: "Well, I didn't do it." I think it's relevant if my - if my friend gets over the first hurdle, then the entire conversation should also go in, because let's not forget that the Crown is leading a theory here that interconnects Mr. Stewart and Mr. Trudel in this whole organization. They're all interconnected. They work together. The Crown is suggesting in fact that my client ordered these people killed because of something to do with Rick Trudel, potentially - as a debt owed, potentially. So if that's the case, then one has to assume that whatever is told to - or at least an inference for the defence - whatever is told to Mr. Trudel ends up going back to Mr. Stewart. That's certainly what the Crown would have, that they're very closely associated. If that's the case, then it is evidence that is relevant if Your Honour finds the Crown is over the first hurdle, because Mr. Stewart doesn't


10332.

disappear, doesn't run away, doesn't go into hiding, neither does Mr. Mallory, and they know that this murder is being investigated and, according to the Crown, is getting awfully close to home. If they, in fact, had done it, it's Rick Trudel and his friends, and they're showing pictures around in July of 1990. And, Your Honour, again, if Your Honour finds the Crown is over the first hurdle, we must also bear in mind that Denis Gaudreault comes back into Mr. Stewart's life in October, if there were indeed five people in a car going to commit a murder, and the police know things about this, including Rick Trudel and Jim Sauvé, and then Mr. Gaudreault shows back up. I would think the first person to be suspected by these four men as being the "fly in the ointment" would be Mr. Gaudreault. But that doesn't come up, even, during their dealings, as Mr. Gaudreault being a "rat" or Mr. Gaudreault talking to the police or even the police investigating this murder. So if my friend is over that first hurdle, that Mr. Trudel's after-the-fact conduct and words in relation to this witness are relevant, then, in my submission, to cut it off halfway would be terribly unfair; not only unfair, but also those protestations of innocence, although not necessarily in for their truth, what he says has some bearing on what occurs later. It's relevant to Mr. Stewart in that we have to assume they're together. According to the Crown's case, they're closely connected, working


10332.

day-to-day on a hand-in-hand basis. If that's the case, then this entire - these entire conversations, if Your Honour finds they are admissible, go in, in my submission, and are relevant to all those issues I've just outlined. There's a whole chain of reasoning that flows from them that the defence would want to avail itself of, if it goes in.THE COURT: Presumably you would argue like the statement cases, the Crown has to take the bad - the good with the bad or bad with the good, from its point of view.MS. MULLIGAN: Well, certainly, I don't think - I don't think the Crown ought to be editing these conversations to get in only what assists them or an inference that they want drawn, because that inference may not be available. If the entire conversation were told to the jury, the jury may find that the rest of it makes that inference meaningless. So you can't - when you start slicing up a conversation and misleading the jury about what was said - I don't mean misleading in a negative way but giving them only half of this conversation - then an inference that the Crown wants to be drawn may be available. But if the jury had the entire conversation, they may refuse to draw that inference, and that's important. And, as Your Honour says, it's like the statement cases, you take the good with the bad, when you lead statements.THE COURT: Mind you, there's a perfectly


10332.

rational explanation as to why Mr. Trudel would lie, quite apart from even his innocence, and that is, of course, that he knows, on the evidence we've heard, that Mr. Sigouin is a friend of Mr. Giroux, and I think he would want to tell the friend of a friend that: "I didn't have anything to do with it", just on the human level.MS. MULLIGAN: And, as I say, there's a perfectly rational reason why Mr. Trudel, other than he did it, might be asking questions out of curiosity, you know, when the police are investigating for a double murder.THE COURT: I quite agree.MS. MULLIGAN: But that's why none of it goes in for its truth, in any event, Your Honour. As my friends say, you can give a limiting instruction. It doesn't go in for the truth of the words that Mr. Trudel said, nor does it go in for any of it - for its truth. It's supposed to be going in, as I understood Mr. Cooper's argument, for Mr. Trudel's state of mind and Mr. Sigouin's state of mind only. So, if that's the case, and Your Honour finds it's admissible, as my friends have said repeatedly, there's no reason why Your Honour can't give a limiting instruction as opposed to chopping this conversation off in the middle and allowing the potential for an inference to be drawn that might not otherwise be drawn if the entire context of the conversation were given.MR. COOPER: I don't mean to say that I've been


10332.

convinced, Your Honour, but Ms. Mulligan's submissions have - as a result of her submissions, I won't be pursuing this.THE COURT: You're not going to be pursuing this at all?MR. COOPER: That's correct. I don't think that's....THE COURT: Okay, that's fine.MR. COOPER: A couple things she said made me think in a different direction, so....THE COURT: All right, having spent most of my evenings for the past two months deep in the transcripts and reading them off the computer, the less on the record the better. Okay.MR. COOPER: In which case I'm almost done, so probably five more minutes, at the outset. Mr. McKechnie, I believe you're next.THE COURT: Just out of interest, you might be interested to know that Mr. McFadden works out to ten pages in the seamless presentation of his evidence, with the cross, the re-exam and the in-chief, all mixed up together. The only way you know how much is in - what's in there is you have to read the references to know whether it was cross, chief or re-examination. If you don't read the references, it just comes out. That took three days.MR. COOPER: That was three days of testimony or three days of analysis?THE COURT: Three days of writing. Ten pages.

**********


10332.

-- Upon resuming in the presence of the jury at 14:58 p.m.


...JURY ENTERS (14:58 p.m.)THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Cooper.MR. COOPER: Thank you, Your Honour.

EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. COOPER: (continues)Q. Mr. Sigouin, I just have about five or six

more questions for you. One concerns the Trudels. You spoke of René Trudel and Rick Trudel and Ti-Guy Trudel and Paolo Trudel. Did you know anyone named Jerry Leeman, sir?

A. Yes, I did.Q. And did he have any - did he fit in with

these other people in any way?A. Yeah, he was a cousin of Rick Trudel - no, he

was his brother-in-law or something. He was with his sister - of Rick Trudel.

Q. Okay. He's a relative of Mr. Trudel's?A. Yeah.Q. Of Rick Trudel's?A. Yeah.Q. And was he involved in drugs with you?A. Yes, a couple times.Q. Okay, and how was he involved?A. Just bringing me like a package or something.Q. Okay, a package of drugs?A. Yes.Q. Did Jerry Leeman ever meet Michel Giroux in

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10339.

your presence?A. No.Q. One other question about the Trudels, and

Rick Trudel in particular. For your own use, sir, did you ever receive any drugs directly from Rick Trudel for your own use?

A. Yes.Q. How did that take place?A. Well, it wasn't from his hands - well, Jerry

was with him and he gave me like half a gram or a gram.Q. It was Jerry Leeman?A. Yes.Q. And you say he was with Rick Trudel?A. Yes.Q. They're both together in this deal?A. Yes.Q. Okay. The other questions I have, sir, and

there's only a few of them, are about the Carlsbad Springs Hotel Show Bar. When you first met Michel Giroux, had you been to the Carlsbad Springs Hotel Show Bar?

A. I don't think so, no.Q. How long were you going there? That's what

I'm trying to get at.A. I'd say probably two years, three years.Q. Okay. Were you going there the whole time

that you dealt cocaine with Mr. Giroux?A. Yes.Q. Okay. And any longer than that period?A. No.Q. Okay. Now, when you were at the Show Bar

itself, sir, did you see any drugs being dealt at the Show Bar?A. Yes.Q. Okay, were you involved in any drug dealing

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10339.

at the Show Bar?A. Yes.Q. You already told us about the time that you

and Paolo were there to give drugs to - you and Paolo Trudel to give drugs to Mr. Giroux. Were you ever - did you ever sell any drugs there in any other way?

A. Yes, I did.Q. Okay. And did you get anyone's permission to

do that?A. No.Q. Did you ever buy any drugs there?A. Yes.Q. Did you get any permission to do that?A. No.Q. Did you ever see Mr. Giroux sell drugs there?A. Yes.Q. Did you see him get any permission?A. No.Q. Did you ever see Mr. Giroux buy any drugs

there?A. No, I didn't see him buy any.Q. Did you ever see any fights when you were

there at the Carlsbad Springs Hotel Show Bar?A. No, not while I was there.Q. Was there any type of turf war going on at

the Show Bar itself for selling drugs?A. No.Q. Did anybody seem to have control over that

bar as their territory?A. No.

D. Sigouin - in-Ch.

(Cooper)

10339.

MR. COOPER: Those are all my questions, sir. I think Mr. McKechnie will be the next lawyer to ask you questions.THE COURT: Just to satisfy my curiosity, in my notes, you keep referring to Ti-Guy - Ti-Guy Trudel. Is that a short form of petit, Ti - T-I-S (sic) - or T-I-T, rather - or T-I - T-I - Ti-Guy?...No audible responseTHE COURT: Okay. I was just wondering. I thought, being very English - I was making sort of T period Guy, instead of little Guy, who is probably rather huge, is he?THE WITNESS: No, he's small.THE COURT: He's small. Sometimes it's the other way. Sometimes if the fellow is about six foot four, he's Ti-Joe. Okay. Thank you.

**********

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. McKECHNIE:Q. Mr. Sigouin, I'm the lawyer for Mr. Mallory.A. Yes.Q. Otherwise known as Ti-Rick.THE COURT: Ti-Rick.MR. McKECHNIE: Q. You mentioned, with Mr.

Cooper, the effects that cocaine had on you, and you said they didn't affect your driving ability - that cocaine doesn't affect your driving ability?

A. No.Q. Not at all?A. No.Q. And you had, therefore, driven under the

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(McKechnie)

10348.

influence of cocaine.A. Cocaine, yes.Q. And does it improve your ability to drive?A. No, it doesn't improve it.Q. What about alcohol, does that affect your

ability to drive?A. Yes, it does.Q. You mentioned that Paolo Trudel, when you

stopped dealing with him, the reason was that he was becoming agitated and - you described it as agitated and unreliable. Was that because he was high all the time?

A. No, it wasn't because he was high, it's just agitated. He had changed. I don't know....

Q. It wasn't because he was using drugs too much?

A. No, no. No.Q. You've never told anybody in any of your

statements that that was the reason that he was agitated all the time?

A. No, not that I could recall, no.Q. You told us that you sold seven grams at a

time to Mike Giroux?A. Yes.Q. Seven grams of cocaine at a time. How

regularly was this? Every week?A. Sometimes it was like for a month - like

contuently (sic) for a month, and then for a month probably he wasn't around and I wasn't around. Like, you know, it wasn't like every week completely.

Q. How would you meet up? Would you just run into each other and he would ask for seven grams or would he call you for it or...?

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(McKechnie)

10348.

A. No, no, a phone call.Q. A phone call.A. Yeah.Q. He'd call you and ask you for seven grams.A. Yes.Q. And you'd meet at these places you've told us

and turn over the money (sic) - the drugs to him.A. Yes.Q. Front him the drugs.A. Yes.Q. And he would pay you back.A. As soon as he finished selling them.Q. How long would that take?A. A couple of days. Sometime a week.

Sometimes be the next week that he'd come and see me to get another package and he'd give me the money for the first one - for the one that I gave him - and grabbed another package.

Q. So he wasn't a guy you'd have to go after for the money - for your money.

A. No, no. No.Q. That continued after Paolo died?A. Yes.Q. And I think you told us it continued right up

- the last time was sometime after Christmas.A. Yes.Q. Do you recall how long after Christmas it was

that...?A. A couple of days. It was just between

Christmas and New Year's, there.Q. And that was again seven grams?A. Yes.Q. And you fronted that to him?

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(McKechnie)

10348.

A. Yes.Q. And then a week or sometime later, he came to

you with the money.A. No, just a couple days after. Because then a

couple of days after, that's when he phoned me if I wanted - if he could have half of a gram.

Q. And you told him no.A. That's right.Q. And was there any reason why you told him no?A. Because I didn't have no more.Q. Were you getting out of dealing or was it

just that you didn't have any more?A. No, I was trying to get out of dealing.Q. Did you tell him that?A. No.Q. So when you say this would've been a few days

after, was this still before the New Year or after the New Year that he....

A. Just before the New Year.Q. Just before.A. Yeah.Q. Now, up until Paolo died, you were getting

the drugs that you would sell to Mike from Paolo.A. Yes.Q. And then, shortly after that, you would've

started contacting directly Rick Trudel...A. Yes.Q. ...to get your drugs. And we notice - we've

seen this listing of phone calls. The first one is dated the 10th of November. These are calls that either Mr. Trudel or somebody using his phone is calling you, is that correct?

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(McKechnie)

10348.

A. Yes.Q. And would you have called Mr. Trudel on

occasion?A. No.Q. And so do you know why he would be calling

you?A. Well, like I was saying in my statement,

there was a big crowd at my place lots of times. We were having parties and friends that knew Rick, and Rick knew that they were hanging around my place, so it must have been like for Pierre Laprise or for myself. It wasn't all for me, like.

Q. You've told us that you, one day, introduced Rick Trudel and Mike Giroux.

A. Yes.Q. That was at your place on Friel Street, was

it?A. No, it's on 143 Beausoleil.Q. Beausoleil. That's in Vanier.A. Lowertown.Q. Lowertown. And I think you said that Mr.

Trudel was just at the door. Was he just leaving?A. He was just standing at the door like inside,

right at the door.Q. And you were talking to him?A. Yes.Q. So this would be - would this be at the time,

I take it, that you had started dealing with him?A. Yes.Q. So this would've been after Paolo died.A. Yes.Q. And was Rick there for dealing in some way?A. No, I don't - I can't recall exactly.

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(McKechnie)

10348.

Q. And Mr. Giroux, what was he there for, to pick up something?

A. To pick up something, yeah.Q. As he came in, they're just passing in the

hallway or the entrance-way to your house?A. Yes.Q. And it's sort of a casual introduction.A. Yes.Q. And there was nothing to indicate to you that

these two people knew each other before that.A. No.Q. So then I would be safe in saying that it was

sometime after. All you can tell us, it was sometime after Paolo died that this introduction took place.

A. Yes.Q. And after this particular introduction, Mr.

Giroux continued to buy at the same rate that he had been buying before?

A. Yes.Q. You told us that Giroux would know that you

were buffing.A. Yes.Q. Okay, is this something everybody does?A. I guess so. I don't know. I was.Q. You call that "stepping on it".A. Yes.Q. You "step" on your drugs.A. Yes.Q. It goes all the way down the line. Somebody

gets it fairly pure, and then the next person on down "steps" on it.

A. Yes.

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(McKechnie)

10348.

Q. So if something has been "stepped" on twice, then it's been buffed twice.

A. Yeah.Q. And that's what Mr. Giroux would've ended up

with.A. Yes.Q. Something that had been "stepped" on at least

twice.A. Yes.Q. Were you aware as to whether or not what you

were getting would've been stepped on?A. No, I wasn't aware, but I could imagine.Q. Can you tell when something has been stepped

on?A. No. Not for myself, anyways.Q. Not even when you mix it with dextrose, by

the sweetness?A. Not in that quantity of seven grams. Not for

myself. Some would know but....Q. And does it....THE COURT: I'm a little confused here. When you say it was stepped on twice when Giroux got it, do you mean Giroux conceivably sold something that was stepped on twice?MR. McKECHNIE: Well, I think you've told us already that....THE COURT: His was stepped on when he got it?MR. McKECHNIE: He stepped on it as well.THE WITNESS: Yes.MR. McKECHNIE: He would've stepped on his before he sold it.THE WITNESS: Oh, I don't know if he had stepped

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(McKechnie)

10348.

- steps (sic) on his, but I did. And I'm sure that the one that I got it from stepped on it too.THE COURT: Okay, okay. I'm just looking for the two steps. I'm a slow walker. Okay.MR. McKECHNIE: Q. Am I incorrect in saying that

you mentioned earlier that Mike Giroux told you he stepped on his?

A. No.Q. Did he not? No?A. He didn't tell me he stepped on his, no.Q. Would you expect him to?A. I guess so.Q. That's where you get your profit from.A. Yes.Q. Would you have just told him that it was -

that you had buffed it or would he ask or would he just expect that?

A. I told him. I told him that I had put two grams of buff in it.

Q. And that affected the price to him. I mean, you're not cheating him in any way.

A. No.Q. That last deal that you did with Mike Giroux,

where was that done, do you recall at all?A. I think it was at my place.Q. That he came to your place.A. Yes.Q. And it was just two days after he took it

that he came up with the money to pay?A. Yes.Q. And that would've been how much?

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(McKechnie)

10348.

A. It was 350 or 400. It was playing - like, it was that range.

Q. And was that fast for him coming back with the money?

A. No, sometimes he was coming back the next day with the money.

Q. And sometimes he'd be longer.A. Yes.Q. So there was nothing that indicated to you

that he had any money troubles.A. No.MR. McKECHNIE: I have no further questions.MS. MULLIGAN: Mr. Stewart is indicating he could use a washroom break. I don't know whether - it's a little early to break but....THE COURT: All right, let's have it now. It's a good time....JURY RETIRES (15:13 p.m.)

**********

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(McKechnie)

10348.

-- In the absence of the jury

MR. COOPER: Your Honour?THE COURT: Yes, certainly.MR. COOPER: Just wait one more second, please. Mr. Sigouin, Your Honour, has a very firm business commitment tomorrow. I know Ms. Mulligan said she won't be done today so I don't know where that is going to put us. Maybe it's going to have to bounce to another date to complete it or something.MS. MULLIGAN: I don't think I will be. I mean, I'll certainly do every - make every effort but I don't expect to be.THE COURT: Is there a time for the business commitment?MR. COOPER: Apparently it's the next two days, Your Honour.THE COURT: Next two days.MR. COOPER: It may be that he could be bounced past the next witness, who is Ms. Gravelle.THE COURT: Well, all right, let's look at it a little later to see how much - see how much is left, and I'm glad for the notice because maybe counsel could arrange with - maybe change the cross a bit, from her point of view, you know. There may be things she would prefer to do now, now that she has notice, I don't know.

R E C E S S (15:15 p.m.)


10349.

U P O N R E S U M I N G: (15:35 p.m.)

--- Upon resuming in the presence of the jury at 15:38 p.m.

THE COURT: Bring in the jury, please.



THE COURT: Ms. Mulligan.MS. MULLIGAN: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. MULLIGAN:Q. Sir, when Mr. Cooper was asking you

questions, you indicated that originally you dealt with Ti-Guy or Ti-Guy.

A. Ti-Guy, yeah.Q. All right, you originally dealt with him, and

that was in relatively small quantities.A. Yes.Q. So Ti-Guy was the type of dealer who dealt in

quarter grams, half grams, maybe a gram.A. That's it.Q. And different dealers would have - deal at

different levels. Some dealers dealt in ounces and some in very small quantities at a time, is that right?

A. Yes.Q. So Ti-Guy - when you left Ti-Guy, it was

because you wanted to deal with someone who dealt in more bulk quantities...

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

A. That's right.Q. ...for wont of a better - and Paolo Trudel

was able to supply you with seven grams at a time.A. Yes.Q. Now, Rick Trudel, you didn't go to him. I

take it, that's because he dealt in even larger quantities, is that fair?

A. Yes.Q. He didn't normally deal in even seven gram

quantities.A. No.Q. And you knew that, at the time that you went

to Paolo Trudel.A. Yes.Q. And when you went - after Paolo Trudel passed

away, you went and you spoke to Rick Trudel, you said, to see if you could get cocaine from him.

A. Yes.Q. And did he not tell you: "My brother René

will deal with you?"A. Yes.Q. And from that point on, sir, it was René

Trudel who brought you drugs?A. Yes.Q. And you said on one occasion, or maybe two

occasions, this Jerry Leeman.A. Yes.Q. But primarily you dealt with René Trudel.A. Yes.Q. And René Trudel collected money from you?A. Yes.Q. In payment for the drugs.

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

A. Yes.Q. Rick Trudel never came and got money from

you?A. No.Q. Rick Trudel never brought you drugs

personally.A. No.Q. You've indicated, sir, in your evidence, that

René Trudel would have known that Michel Giroux was one of your customers.

A. That wouldn't know?Q. I think you told Mr. Cooper that he would

have - he did know.A. Yes, yes, right. René, yeah.Q. Okay. And how is it that he knew that, sir?A. Me telling him.Q. Do you recall testifying on a previous

occasion, sir, back in February of '96, and saying that you didn't tell René who your customers were?

A. I don't recall, no.Q. Okay. Would you look at page 54, February

15th, 1996.A. 14th?Q. February 15th, at page 54.A. I only have February 14th here, '96.Q. Maybe I have the wrong date. Just give me a

second. No, that's it. Oh, transcripts. I'm sorry.A. These ones here?Q. Yes.A. Sorry.Q. I think those ones.A. Page?

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

Q. 54.A. Okay.Q. On page 54, sir, you were asked the question: "Now, did you ever tell René who your customers were? Answer: No."

On page - just to complete the picture - on page 55, question at the top of the page:

"Did you ever tell René Trudel the names of your clients? Answer: No. Question: Did you write down the name Michel Giroux? Answer: No. Question: Did you ever have a debt list? Answer: No. Question: And did - you told us that you never told René Trudel that this fellow, Michel Giroux, was a client of yours. Answer: That's it."

Do you recall those questions and answers?A. Yes.Q. It seems to be the opposite of what you're

saying today, sir.A. Yes.Q. You would agree with me that both those

things can't be true. You either did or did not tell them, and under oath on that occasion, you said you did not.

A. Um-hmm.MR. COOPER: I think you should continue just another little bit. There seems to be a problem

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

at that time with the interpreter, according to Mr. Harbic.MS. MULLIGAN: Mr. Harbic advises the Interpreter that:

"It's important, there are different Trudels. The name is that he never told René Trudel. THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. HARBIC: Q. And I also put to you that you certainly never - never mentioned the name Michel Giroux as being a customer of yours to Rick Trudel.Answer: No."

Is that far enough, Mr. Cooper?MR. COOPER: Um-hmm.MS. MULLIGAN: Q. Do you remember those

questions and answers?A. Yes.Q. All right, on that occasion, sir, under oath,

you said that you hadn't told either René Trudel or Rick Trudel that Michel Giroux was a customer of yours.

A. Um-hmm.Q. Can you explain the difference?A. Yeah, well, I thought at first, when you

meant Mike Trudel - uh, Mike Trudel! - Rick Trudel meant like in the hallway that - that I had told him that he was one of my customers. I only told him after that.

Q. Well, what about René Trudel, sir? You told us here today that you told René Trudel this, yet in your evidence in '96, you said that you didn't. You didn't tell him the names of your customers nor did you tell him the name of Michel Giroux.

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

A. Yes, I did tell him.Q. You guess you didn't tell him.A. I did tell him.Q. You did tell him.A. Yes.Q. Do you agree with me, sir, that in general,

you didn't tell people the names of your drug customers? It wasn't something you talked about on a regular basis with friends.

A. No, no. Q. And it certainly wasn't something that you wanted to tell your suppliers because you might get cut out of the deal, right? They might cut you out.

A. Yeah.Q. And, generally speaking, it wasn't good

business for you to tell people the name of your supplier either, right?

A. No.Q. That wasn't the kind of thing that was done.A. No.Q. So when and where was it that you had this

conversation with René Trudel about Michel Giroux?A. Just on the lawn in front of 143 Beausoleil.Q. And was Michel Giroux present?A. No, he wasn't.Q. So you said: "I have a customer named Mike" -

or what did you say to René?A. I have Mike. Mike Giroux.Q. Okay.A. That I have a customer, Mike Giroux. He's

the one that buys the most off of me.Q. Did you tell René where this customer lived?

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

A. No.Q. Did you give him a description of this

customer?A. No.Q. Did you tell him how old he was?A. No.Q. Did you give him a phone number for this

customer?A. No.Q. Do you recall why it was you were telling

René any of this?A. I don't know.Q. Do you recall what it was that you first

remembered telling - or told the police about this?A. I don't recall - remember.Q. You don't know when you first said that.

Now, as far as the money that you owed when Mr. Paolo Trudel passed away, you said you owed $400 left over from a truck loan?

A. Yes.Q. So you have been paying that back in

instalment types?A. Yes.Q. You didn't owe any money for drugs at the

time that Paolo - or Paolo Trudel died.A. No.Q. And it was Mr. René Trudel who asked you for

that money back, is that right?A. Yes.Q. And in fact it was Mr. René Trudel who you

paid.A. Yes.

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

Q. And at the time, sir, when Michel Giroux died, did you owe any money to René Trudel or Rick Trudel?

A. I think it was 600 bucks or some - $600.Q. You owed $600?A. Yeah.Q. Did you pay that back?A. Yes.Q. How long had you owed that for?A. Not too long. It was probably a week or two.Q. A week or two.A. Yeah.Q. Had anyone threatened you over that?A. No. Q. So it was the normal amount of time that you

would owe money to René or to Rick Trudel was a week or two, and then you would pay it off?

A. Yes.Q. And they had no problem with that.A. No.Q. And at the time when Michel Giroux died, did

he owe you any money?A. No.Q. He was fully paid up?A. Yes.Q. These two gentlemen, Mr. Stewart and Mr.

Mallory, prior to Mr. Giroux's death, had you ever met them?A. No. Just Mr. Mallory. I just seen him once.Q. You'd seen him once arm-wrestling, I think,

is that right?A. Yes.

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

Q. At the Playmate?A. Yeah.Q. And you knew him to be a competitor - an arm-

wrestler.A. Yes.Q. But otherwise you didn't know them.A. No.Q. Now, you dealt drugs - I guess the largest

quantity, seven grams at a time.A. Yes.Q. But Mr. Giroux, did you know him to be

selling drugs in that kind of quantity?A. Just seven gram at a time.Q. Okay. Would Mr. Giroux sell it back in a

seven gram quantity at a time or did he sell it in smaller quantities?

A. Oh, smaller quantities.Q. So you were, fair to say, one level above Mr.

Giroux...A. Yes.Q. ...who sold. Yet you didn't know Mr. Stewart

was connected to Rick Trudel?A. No.Q. You didn't know about Mr. Stewart's business?A. No.Q. Did you know about the ins and outs of Mr.

Trudel - Rick Trudel's business except for his family members?A. No.Q. You talked about an introduction at your

house. You said sometime after Paolo's death, Rick Trudel, I think you said, was at your house and Mike Giroux came through

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

the door?A. Yes.Q. And Paolo - we've established that sometime

in the first part of November, November 7th or somewhere in there - do you recall that, November of 1990?

A. Paolo?Q. Or 1989, I should say, yes.A. Yes.Q. And in relation to that, can you give us any

estimate as to how long after that, that Rick Trudel would've been at your house?

A. I wouldn't - couple of months. I'm not sure at all.

Q. You're not sure?A. No.Q. Certainly not a matter of days after his

brother's death.A. No.Q. Would it be fair to say at least weeks, but

you're just not sure?A. Yes.Q. At least a couple of weeks?A. Yes, couple of weeks or a month, probably.Q. Or a month, probably?THE COURT: Is that 7th of November that you were fidgeting around for? Was that the date? It wasn't....MS. MULLIGAN: I think....THE COURT: It wasn't 17th?MS. MULLIGAN: I'm sorry.THE COURT: 17th of November, Paolo Trudel....MS. MULLIGAN: You're right.

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

THE COURT: No, no, sorry, that was - that was Denis Roy. Sorry, I apologize, counsel. Maybe it was the 7th of November.MS. MULLIGAN: I think....THE COURT: Were they that close together? Why don't we ask? Why don't we find out? Why shouldn't we be finding out about this?MS. MULLIGAN: Okay, that's the confusion. Mr. Trudel shot himself on November 7th. THE COURT: Okay.MS. MULLIGAN: He died on the 10th.THE COURT: Okay. MS. MULLIGAN: Q. Okay, and you're saying that

it would be at least a couple weeks, but probably closer to a month before you next see Rick Trudel.

A. Yes.Q. And you see him at your house.A. Yes.Q. And you have no idea, at this point in time,

why he was there.A. No.Q. Was he there alone?A. Who are you talking about, Rick?Q. Yes.A. At my place?Q. Yes.A. Yes.Q. And Mr. Giroux, did he come to your place

alone?A. Yes.Q. And when they met, sir, you introduced them

by first names only?

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

A. Yes.Q. You said: "Rick, this is Mike. Mike, this is

Rick."A. That's right.Q. I think my friend covered this a bit but they

didn't say: "Oh, we've already met, we know each other"?A. No.Q. In Lac Simon? Lac Simon?A. No.Q. No. He didn't say anything like that. They

appeared to be meeting for the first time, to your eyes.A. Yes.Q. Is that right?A. Yes.Q. Did they have any conversation beyond that or

just...?A. No, he just walked out right after.Q. And you say that after Rick Trudel left, you

un-characteristically told Mr. Giroux that that was your supplier.

A. Yes.Q. That's not something you would normally do.A. No.Q. But on this occasion, you did.A. Yes.Q. And did you tell him where he could find Rick

Trudel if he wanted to?A. No.Q. Rick Trudel wasn't living in the same project

as you...A. No.Q. ...or in the same area. Well, did you tell

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

him - you never did tell him Rick Trudel's last name.A. No.Q. You didn't give him a phone number for Rick

Trudel.A. No.Q. Nor did you give Michel Giroux any way to get

a hold of René Trudel.A. No.Q. And the two never - Rick Trudel and Michel

Giroux never crossed paths again in your presence, that you're aware of - like, in your presence.

A. No, just in front of my place, but there was no conversation or nothing like that.

Q. Oh, they saw each other one time in front of your place.

A. Yes.Q. And when was that in relation to this other

time?A. It was just in the summertime. I'm just

sitting in front and Mike was sitting with me and Mike - Rick just went by and it was just - he didn't stay or nothing, it was just "Hi" and that's it.

Q. So he saw him.A. Yeah, that's it.Q. That's it.A. That's it.Q. And on that occasion, there was no discussion

about who anybody was or any...A. No.Q. ...introductions?A. No.Q. It didn't appear to you at that time that

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

the two of them knew each other.A. No.Q. Sir, with respect to your interactions with

the police, you indicated to Mr. Cooper - I'll put the dates to you, and if I'm wrong, I'm sure Mr. Cooper will jump up. I don't expect you to remember them all, but on July 30th, 1990, you met with Rick Riddell and Heather Lamarche.

A. Yes.Q. On January 3rd, 1991, with Officers Fortier

and Chevalier?A. Yes.Q. On January 8th, 1991, again, Officer Fortier

and Chevalier?A. Yes.Q. On October 21st, '92, with Officers Lamarche

and Riddell?A. Yeah.Q. On November 23rd, '92, with Officers Marion

and Fortier?A. Yes.Q. On December 16th, '92 - I'll just take a look

here to see which officer - you met again with Officer Riddell?A. Yes.MS. MULLIGAN: If I could have a moment, please, just to clarify. I'm told it's Officer Fagan. Same that I have. I'm sorry, Your Honour, it's in Riddell's handwriting but apparently it's pre- printed (ph). So it was Officer Fagan.MS. MULLIGAN: Q. Do you remember a different

officer you hadn't met before in about December '92?A. Yeah.

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

Q. And then in May '94, sir, you were interviewed by Officers Doherty and Snider, do you remember that? They took a long statement from you?

A. Yeah. I got April '94.Q. Oh, April '94, all right. And you met with

whom on that occasion, do you recall? Was it Officer Doherty as well?

A. I think the names are not marked in my transcripts there. Maybe....

Q. Maybe Mr. Cooper can assist.A. Yeah, Doherty - Gary Doherty, yeah.Q. Okay. And then I went to May 16th, '94. You

met with Gary Doherty and George Snider?A. Yeah.Q. And in February of '96, you had some phone

conversations, it looks like, with Officer Doherty, and then some preparation to testify with Officer Doherty and Mr. Cooper?

A. Yeah.Q. And with Detective Snider on one occasion in

February '96, preparation to testify.A. Yes.Q. And Detective Ralko as well.A. Yeah.Q. Now, you've come to testify on this occasion,

and again you've sat down - you've gone over your statements and notes and all those things you have in front of you?

A. Yes.Q. And how many days have you been doing that

for?A. For about two and a half days.

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

Q. Two and a half days?A. Altogether.Q. With the Crown Attorney and an officer.A. Yeah.Q. Officer Ralko?A. Officer Ralko and....Q. And you reviewed - well, he asked you a

number of questions, I take it, Mr. Cooper?A. Yes.Q. And reviewed with you everything that you

have said before.A. Yes.Q. And did you have any new memories this time?A. Yes, I did.Q. And what were your new memories? Did you

tell us about those in-chief? When Mr. Cooper asked you questions, did you already tell us everything that came to you...

A. Yes.Q. ...on this occasion? This speedboat that you

said Paolo had, the blue metallic speedboat, right?A. Yes.Q. You said you had seen it in Lowertown in the

parking lot sitting on a trailer.A. Yes.Q. Do you recall when it was there?A. Oh, I can't tell you exactly the date. It

was in the summertime.Q. In the summertime before Paolo's death? That

summer?A. Yes.Q. Did it remain there?

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

A. No, no.Q. When did it leave, roughly? Was it when

there was snow on the ground or before that?A. Well, before that. It wasn't there for long.Q. So it was in the summer. When did Paolo

leave? When did he move to - out west?A. Oh, I don't know the date.MR. COOPER: Not out west.MS. MULLIGAN: Q. Well, out west - Ottawa. You

said he lived in the west end.A. Yeah.Q. All right.MR. COOPER: West of Kanata.MS. MULLIGAN: Q. West of Kanata.A. It wasn't too long, there. He wasn't living

there too long after that he shot himself.Q. And do you know whether the boat left about

the same time that Paolo left the area?A. I couldn't tell. I know it wasn't there for

long.Q. Now, sir, you said something about knowing

that your statement was out in the area. People knew that you had given a statement to the police, is that right?

A. Yes.Q. By the time that occurred, of course, you

said it was just before you had your interview with Officers Lamarche and Riddell in 1992 that you learned about that, is that right?

A. It was with Chevalier, there.Q. Your statement...A. Yeah.

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

Q. ...was with Chevalier and Fortier.A. Yeah.Q. And that statement was given in January of

'91.A. Yeah.Q. When did you learn, though, from Ti-Guy, that

it was - it was out and about - that people knew about your statement?

A. Just before I went and met Rick - Richard Riddell there in Orléans.

Q. So in October of '92?A. Yeah.Q. By that time, sir, Rick Trudel had been

arrested in August on drug charges?A. Yes.Q. And was serving a sentence, I guess, on those

charges by then. Were you aware of that?A. Yes.Q. And all that you had said in your first few

state....THE COURT: In August, following the date of '92. Perhaps the jury....MS. MULLIGAN: Q. I'm sorry, in August of 1990,

Rick Trudel had been arrested?A. Yes.Q. And by the time that you learned that your

statement was out, you were aware that he was already serving a sentence in relation to drugs.

A. Yes.Q. And your first two statements to Officer

Fortier and Chevalier primarily, as far as Rick Trudel goes, just implicated him in the drug business, did it not?

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

A. Yeah.Q. You had said that after that, you were

reluctant to speak to the police but is it - after you spoke to Ti-Guy - but is it not true that you were always reluctant to speak to the police?

A. Yes.Q. From day one.A. Yeah.Q. You said you knew Michel Giroux for six or

seven years prior to his death?A. Yes.Q. He had been a friend of yours?A. Not a close friend, there. It was just

mostly through Carlsbad Spring. I was there lots of times because my brother was involved with Annette Desjardins, which she was born there. She lived there all her life.

Q. Through the town of Carlsbad Springs.A. Yeah, through the town.Q. But you would play pool with him on

occasion...A. Yes.Q. ...at Carlsbad Springs Show Bar?A. Yes.Q. You dealt drugs back and forth?A. That's right.Q. And, in the end, in fact, was it not so that

Mr. Giroux was supplying you with drugs?A. Yes.Q. So it worked both ways.A. Yes.Q. You supplied him but Michel Giroux was also

supplying you. It went back and forth.

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

A. Yes.Q. You had Michel Giroux and his wife over to

your home on one occasion?A. Yes.Q. Social occasion?A. Yes.Q. You had been to his home twice. Were those

social occasions?A. No, just to go and pick up something, and

then it was just outside. I dropped over with a friend and he was doing mechanic (sic) there on a car or something.

Q. You knew Big John Provost or Prévost?A. Jean Provost, yeah.Q. He was a friend of Michel Giroux's?A. Yes.Q. And he was a tow truck driver, is that right?A. Yeah.Q. And this Big John that was a friend of Michel

Giroux's was a great big guy, was he?A. Yes.Q. Round, big guy?A. Yes.Q. Heavy or overweight?A. Heavy, yeah.Q. He wasn't a tall skinny guy.A. No.Q. When you first met with the police, you were

not only shown pictures of Jim Sauvé and Rick Trudel, you were also shown pictures of these two gentlemen, were you not?

A. Yes.Q. And you didn't know them other than seeing

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

Mr. Mallory arm-wrestling.A. That's right.Q. You also told the police on July 30th, 1990,

that you didn't believe that Michel Giroux knew Jim Sauvé or Rick Trudel?

A. That's right.Q. On January 3rd, 1991, your statement on that

date, you indicated to the police that you had never seen Michel Giroux with Rick Trudel or James Sauvé?

A. Yeah.MR. COOPER: Which statement was that, sorry?MS. MULLIGAN: January 3rd, '91.MS. MULLIGAN: Q. Now, on January 8th, '91, do

you recall the two officers - do you know why they came back to you so quickly? Did they give you any explanation?

A. I don't recall exactly. Maybe because I had missed an appointment or something like that, but I don't recall.

Q. Well, you had met with them on January 3rd.A. Yes.Q. The same two officers came back January 8th,

right?A. Yes.Q. And at the time, sir, did they suggest - and

I don't mean that they screamed at you or anything - but did they suggest to you that you should want to do more to help solve this murder of your friend?

A. Yeah, they asked me, like, you know, to help them out. It was a murder. They were talking about a murder here and to tell them what I know.

Q. Did they tell you on that occasion, sir, to just imagine if your wife was pregnant and this happened to

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

her?A. Yes.Q. Did they tell you whoever had done this was

sick and things like that, trying to encourage you to speak? A. Yes.

Q. And you told us about this occasion with Ti-Guy Trudel where he, you said, called you a "rat". Did he threaten you in any way?

A. No.Q. Now, on January 8th, '91, when you gave your

statement, did you tell the police that you had introduced Michel Giroux to Rick Trudel as Rick and Mike?

A. Yes.Q. Did you tell them that on that date, January

8th, '91?A. I'm going to have to read it over, there.

No.Q. You didn't tell them that.A. No.Q. Then the next meeting you have is the meeting

with Officer Lamarche and Riddell where Officer Riddell gets upset October 21st, '92.

A. Yeah.Q. And one thing that you weren't asked about

with respect to that meeting, sir, you had always made it clear that you knew who Michel Giroux was and Manon Bourdeau to the police. You weren't hiding that fact.

A. No.Q. And they didn't seem to question that you

knew Michel Giroux. They had found your name and number in his house, right?

A. No (sic).

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

Q. So they were satisfied with that.A. Yes.Q. As far as you could tell.A. Yeah.Q. Yet on October 21st, '92, you recall

Detective Lamarche - or Detective Riddell throwing down in front of you pictures of your dead friends, Michel Giroux and Manon Bourdeau?

A. Yes.Q. Were they pictures taken, do you recall, in

their house or the morgue or do you remember?A. It was in their house.Q. With pools of blood and all that sort of

thing?A. Yes.Q. How did you feel?A. I felt pretty bad.Q. And Detective Riddell was telling you at the

same time that you were going to have to say more, is that not right?

A. Yes, I'm going to have to say more than what I know.

Q. More of what you know?A. No, no, more than what I know, like, you

know.Q. He wanted you to say more and he wanted you

to say what you knew.A. What I knew, yeah.Q. And you were telling him at the time you

didn't know any more?A. No (sic).Q. And is that when these pictures came out?

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

A. I'm not too sure if it was right there at - in Orléans that those pictures came out. I think it was before that. I'm not too sure.

Q. It may assist you, it may not, to look at the notes - page 1254 of Lamarche's notes on that date.

MS. MULLIGAN: Apparently the witness doesn't have the stamped pages, Your Honour. Just a moment.MR. COOPER: It would be page 31, handwritten, sir.THE WITNESS: It's October '92, is that it?MS. MULLIGAN: Yes.MR. COOPER: Yes.THE WITNESS: 21st? Page 21?MR. COOPER: 31.THE WITNESS: 31.MR. COOPER: Apparently we gave the witness the typewritten ones. I'll just find it.MS. MULLIGAN: Sorry, Your Honour, I don't have any typewritten ones, so I can't assist.THE WITNESS: Yes, it was at that occasion.MS. MULLIGAN: Q. Was the suggestion made to

you, sir, that maybe it was somehow your fault that your friends were killed?

A. No, no.Q. That wasn't made to you?A. No.Q. Because you knew that, at the time of his

death, Mr. Giroux didn't owe you any money.A. No.Q. And you were under no pressure from René or

Rick Trudel to pay the money - the little bit of money you

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

owed.A. No.Q. So as far as you were aware, it couldn't have

anything to do with your connection with Mr. Giroux.A. Yeah.Q. You've talked about buffing or stepping on

cocaine now with both counsel. You, sir, weren't exactly working for Mr. Rick Trudel, were you?

A. No.Q. Or René Trudel.A. No.Q. What you were doing was getting goods -

cocaine - on credit.A. Yes.Q. And what you did with that cocaine, nobody

really - or the Trudels didn't really care as long as you paid your credit back, right?

A. That's right.Q. Paid your debt. You could have used it all

yourself, given it all to your wife, or sold the whole thing and it wouldn't have made a bit of difference, as long as you paid your debt.

A. That's right.Q. And you did.A. Yeah.Q. And you said that you would keep two grams

out of the seven grams. You would take that out off the top for yourself.

A. Yes.Q. And I think you told Mr. Cooper that you

didn't re-buff that. That two grams was your stock.A. That's right.

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

Q. And with respect to your - I guess it would be like your private stock - that's what you used, right?

A. Yes.Q. And with respect to that, you liked to have a

more pure kind of cocaine to use for yourself than what you were going to pass on when you sold it.

A. Yes.Q. Okay. Sir, correct me if I'm wrong, but did

you - were you not aware, when you were purchasing drugs back from Mr. Giroux on occasion, that he was also stepping on his? I thought you were. Is that not so?

A. Yes.Q. So you knew that he was.A. Yeah.Q. And did you, on occasion, when you delivered

drugs to him, see him take out a quantity for his private stock or for what he was going to use?

A. No, I didn't see him taking it out.Q. You didn't see it.A. No.Q. You don't know whether....A. It was quick deals like, you know, sometimes.Q. You don't know whether he did, one way or the

other.A. No. I wouldn't know.Q. But that certainly was your practice.A. Yeah.Q. On the occasions when you were at his house,

sir, did you see any evidence that Mr. Giroux was using his house as a stash house, storing large quantities of cocaine for people?

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

A. No.Q. As someone who was dealing cocaine yourself,

would you have wanted to keep a stash house in your residence?A. No.Q. Why would that be?A. Because I got two kids at home.Q. In your experience, sir, as a dealer, aside

from having the two kids at home, would it be wise to be selling out of your house and also have a stash house there - also have a bunch of cocaine?

A. I can't get it, there. Could you rephrase that question, please?

Q. Okay. MR. COOPER: Well, Your Honour, I don't know that Mr. Sigouin is an expert in stash houses. I don't know that he's ever referred to one in all of his evidence.MS. MULLIGAN: Q. Do you know what I'm referring

to as far as a "stash house" goes?A. A big quantity, is that it? Yeah, I never

had any, so.Q. You never had any. Okay, I'll leave it at

that. Now, this last deal with Mr. Giroux you said was between Christmas and New Year's.

A. Yes.Q. Same quantity as always?A. Yes.Q. And he paid it off.A. Yes.Q. You had been to the Carlsbad Springs Show Bar

with him. You said you had seen him dealing drugs there, I take it?

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

A. Yes.Q. Had you ever seen anyone else giving him

drugs?A. Not giving him drugs, but I bought from

somebody else there too.Q. He had bought from someone else or you had?A. No, no, I bought it from somebody else.Q. You did. Was there a fair bit of - a fair

number of people selling drugs at Carlsbad Springs, that you saw?

A. A couple that I know, yes.Q. A couple?A. Yeah.Q. It seemed to be a competitive marketplace

where there was a lot of competition for sales?A. No, not really, but you could sell, if you

want, like, you know.Q. I'm sorry?A. Not really. It wasn't a big big thing but

you could sell, if you want.Q. You said you see a couple people selling. Is

that all you ever....A. If one didn't had (sic) any, some - somebody

else around would have some.Q. Is that all you saw selling there was a

couple people?A. Yes, that I knew, yeah.Q. Did you see Ti-Moc or Michel Desjardins

selling there?A. Yes.Q. Did you ever see him sell to Michel Giroux?A. No, not that I can....

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

Q. What about the bartender, was he selling there?

A. Yes.Q. Do you know his name?A. No, I don't know his name.Q. You knew Michel Giroux and he was selling

there.A. Yes.Q. You said you occasionally sold there.A. Sold there too, yeah.Q. Did you know anyone else who sold there?A. No.Q. That was it?A. Yeah.Q. As far as your business there, I take it that

wasn't the bulk of your business. You sold - if somebody wanted some, you would sell them a quarter gram or a half gram or....

A. That's right.Q. You didn't go there on a regular basis for

that purpose.A. No.Q. On any other occasion, sir - excuse-me, I

take it you've reviewed this - on any other occasion when you've testified, you said that you were aware of other suppliers for Mr. Giroux. I take it, you were mistaken or you misunderstood, is that right?

A. One more supplier.MR. COOPER: Well, Your Honour, given Ms. Mulligan's objection earlier, I think we're in that same ball park. This is something the witness saw. He can't testify to hearsay. That

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

was Ms. Mulligan's position earlier today.MS. MULLIGAN: And it's still my position, sir. Maybe I can rephrase it.MS. MULLIGAN: Q. With respect to saying that

you had seen other people supplying drugs to Mr. Giroux on previous occasions, if you said that under oath on previous occasions, I take it you were just mistaken or misunderstood or...?

A. Yeah, I knew somebody else that was giving him drugs, that he told me.

MR. COOPER: Well, there, Your Honour, we've done it, haven't we?THE COURT: Um-hmm.MR. COOPER: It's objectionable when I'm asking for the evidence but not when Ms. Mulligan is.MS. MULLIGAN: Well, Your Honour, that....THE COURT: Well, let's not parade it. Let's leave it. Go. Move on. Next case. We don't need a parade of hurt feelings, counsel. It's all there.MS. MULLIGAN: Well, perhaps it's something that can be discussed at the end of the day more fruitfully. My concern is with the characterization that I was trying to elicit hearsay, and that's not the case.THE COURT: Well, whether you were or you weren't, it's just happened, that's all. You may have thought something else. I never delve into counsel's intent; it's tough enough just dealing with their actions.MS. MULLIGAN: Q. As far as you said you had

this one conversation with René Trudel where, for reasons you

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

can't remember, you told him Michel Giroux was a customer - your main customer?

A. Yeah.Q. And I think we've covered it, you didn't tell

him anything else about Michel Giroux.A. No.Q. Did he ever come back to you and make any

further inquiries about Michel Giroux?A. No.Q. He never asked you another question about

him.A. No.Q. Did anyone in that circle inquire about

Michel Giroux to you?A. No.Q. Of course, prior to his death is what I'm

referring to.A. Yeah.Q. You said that you told René Trudel that the

police had been to see you?A. Yes.Q. In July. The same day or the day after that

they had been to see you in July 1990?A. Yeah.Q. And you told him that you were shown pictures

of his brother Rick?A. Yes.Q. And James Sauvé?A. Yes.Q. Did he mention anything about the other two

or do you recall?A. No, I didn't - I didn't know. I didn't know

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

him.Q. All right, so you just told him that they

were by asking you questions about this murder.A. Yes.Q. You said that James Sauvé's mother lived

nearby. Did you let her know as well that the police were around?

A. No.Q. You didn't speak to her about that?A. No.Q. With respect to the telephone records, sir,

we went through them this morning. If you could have that last exhibit, the telephone records. Thank you. Exhibit 225. I'm just going to put it in front of you. I note here, there's the first to 11th calls.

A. Um-hmm.Q. There's the call number on the bill, the

date, the time when the call was initiated, and your phone number, right?

A. Yes.Q. Did you have a chance, when you were

reviewing any of that, in preparation or on the stand, to realize or note how much time each of these calls took?

A. No.Q. If I suggest to you the longest one was two

minutes, does that - it doesn't help you at all?A. No.Q. Okay. You said that you may not have

actually talked to anyone on these calls. You don't know.A. That's right.Q. And as far as whether the caller - where it's

indicated a minute, for instance - whether the caller

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

actually got through to anyone at your house, I suppose you don't really know either.

A. I don't know.Q. And you can't tell us who the caller is.A. No.Q. But once you had been referred to René Trudel

by Rick Trudel, I take it that you had no further conversations with Rick Trudel about getting drugs for yourself or paying your debt or anything like that?

A. No.Q. No? You have to say yes or no.A. No.Q. Okay. You had indicated that you had bought

a dog from Rick Trudel.A. Yes.Q. And that was, you said, before April '90 when

you were bit...A. No, no.Q. ...is that right?A. No, no. Yeah, I bought it before I was bit,

yes.Q. Okay, so you bought it before Thunder bit

you.A. Yes.Q. And do you recall when it was that you

actually got Champ, whether it was in the fall of '89 or the beginning of 1990 or...?

A. No, I couldn't say.Q. Okay. Do you recall how old Champ was when

you got him? A. Yes, he was about three months.

Q. About three months old.

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

A. Yeah.Q. And do you recall how long it was before you

were bit by Thunder that you got Champ?A. It was probably a period of seven or eight

months, something like that. It was probably a year - Champ was probably a year or something or....

Q. When did you get rid of Champ, do you remember? A. I had him for about a year and a half so....

Q. I'm just wondering, sir, if any of these calls could represent conversations about buying the dog, but it doesn't sound like it. If it's November '89, you had the dog by then, you're saying?

A. Yes.Q. All right. So you can't explain these phone

calls.A. No.Q. You certainly, I take it, sir, up to the

point where Mr. Rick Trudel was arrested in August - I'll leave that. With respect to when you first told the police that you had introduced Rick Trudel to Michel Giroux, sir, I'm going to suggest to you that occurs on May 16th, '94, with Doherty and Snider - Officers Doherty and Snider. Do you recall that?

A. Yes.Q. Would this be the next sit-down meeting that

you - maybe there's one in between - but this would be the next statement you give about the events, I take it, after having met with the officers in October of '92? In April is when you first tell Doherty and then write a statement to Doherty and Snider about it in May?

A. Yes.Q. As far as Paolo meeting Michel Giroux, you

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

said you introduced them one time at the Carlsbad Springs?A. Yes.Q. Did you also continue to supply Michel Giroux

after that?A. Yes.Q. Did you tell the police something to the

effect that Paolo wouldn't "cut your grass"; in other words, he wouldn't go in and take over your business?

A. That's right, yeah.Q. He wasn't that kind of guy?A. No.Q. And you continued to deal with Michel Giroux,

despite the fact that he had met Paolo.A. Yes.Q. Were you able to tell, sir, from being at the

Carlsbad Springs, how much volume or business Michel Giroux did or not?

A. No, I wouldn't (sic) tell - I couldn't tell.Q. Just a moment. Sir, just one last question.

There's a phone call January 17th, 1990, in particular, on this list, to your number, on exhibit - the exhibit I handed you.

THE COURT: 225.THE WITNESS: Yes.MS. MULLIGAN: Q. Okay. It's Exhibit 225, and

it's phone call number nine.A. Okay.Q. In particular, sir, that phone call, I wanted

to ask you about - do you have any recollection of the content of that phone call?

A. No, I don't.Q. Do you think you would recall it if Mr. Rick

Trudel had phoned you up to discuss Michel Giroux's death?

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex.

(Mulligan)

10353.

A. No, he didn't.Q. He didn't do that...A. No.Q. ...on January 17th?A. No.Q. And you don't recall specifically, however,

what the conversation was about other than not....A. No, I don't - none of them.MS. MULLIGAN: Thank you, sir, those are all my questions.MR. COOPER: I might be a little longer than four minutes, Your Honour, but I think I can attempt to finish the witness.THE COURT: All right.

**********

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. COOPER:Q. All these calls - the 11 calls, sir - you

don't know what Mr. Trudel was calling about.A. No, I don't know.Q. You had two things to do with Mr. Trudel -

well, you said he was a friend of yours. You said that in-chief.

A. Yes.Q. As was Mr. Sauvé. You said they were your

friends.A. Yes.Q. The main part of your relationship you've

described so far is you bought a dog and you sold his drugs.A. Yes.Q. You can't explain what the 11 phone calls are

about.

D. Sigouin - Cr-Ex. (Mulligan)

- Re-Ex. (Cooper)

10385.

A. Maybe I wasn't home with those calls. Maybe I was not even present when those calls were....

Q. Sometimes there's two a night - or it's two a night on the 10th of November, for example, correct?

A. Um-hmm. Yes.Q. And there's two on the - two a night on the

8th of December.A. Yes.Q. Two in the afternoon on the 28th of December.

Two in the afternoon, early evening, on the 30th of January. There's a rather persistent pattern there: two, two, two, two. You don't know what these were about, though.

A. I can't recall.Q. Can you recall what it was that you had to

say to Mr. Trudel during this period of time?MS. MULLIGAN: Well, Your Honour, I do object. The witness has never said he spoke to Mr. Trudel or that those calls definitely came from Mr. Trudel. He's just putting the evidence back wrongly is what I'm suggesting.THE COURT: Um-hmm.MR. COOPER: Q. You said in-chief, sir, you

didn't know if all these calls were for you.A. That's right.Q. Or in cross-examination, sorry. You said

some of them must have - might've been to Mr. Laprise, I think you said his name was.

A. Yes.Q. So some of them might have been to you.A. Yes.Q. They all might have been to you.A. Maybe.

D. Sigouin - Re-Ex.

(Cooper)

10387.

Q. You don't know.A. I don't know, maybe.Q. Ms. Mulligan reviewed with you Paolo Trudel

wasn't the kind of guy who would "cut your grass", correct?A. Yes.Q. Initially, when you bought cocaine, sir, you

were buying it from Ti-Guy Trudel.A. Yes.Q. Paolo Trudel - you switched to Paolo Trudel

because you wanted to deal in big quantities, right?A. Yes.Q. Is Paolo Trudel the kind of guy who said: "Oh

no, you've got to deal with my buddy Ti-Guy"?A. No.Q. No, he'd cut Ti-Guy's grass.A. He'd....MS. MULLIGAN: Your Honour, I don't know if this is re-examination or cross-examination, but it's coming close to the line.MR. COOPER: Q. Did Paolo cut Ti-Guy's grass

when he eliminated Ti-Guy?A. Well, he told me to go and see Paolo because

he didn't had (sic) big quantities.Q. There wasn't any problem with it.A. No.Q. There wasn't any problem with Ti-Guy cutting

Ti-Guy - I'm sorry, any problem with Paolo cutting Ti-Guy out of the loop.

A. That's right.Q. You said - Ti-Guy Trudel, back to him again -

the part about him calling you a "rat". You told Ms. Mulligan he didn't threaten you in any way.

D. Sigouin - Re-Ex.

(Cooper)

10387.

A. No, he just called me a "rat".Q. Okay. Did you feel threatened?A. Yes, I did feel threatened.Q. Those two French guys, Fortier and Chevalier,

on the 3rd and 8th of January 1991, Ms. Mulligan pointed out the same officers suggested: "You should want to do more, it was a murder case. You should tell more. Imagine if it was your wife."

A. Yes.Q. Having heard all that, did you make up any

evidence?A. No, I didn't.Q. Did you tell them the truth?A. Not all of it, no.Q. But what you did tell them, was it the truth?A. Yes.Q. Ms. Mulligan said in your first two

statements, meaning those two statements there, that you just implicated Mr. Trudel in drugs, correct?

A. Yes.Q. And you agreed with her. When do you first

make the connection with Paolo Trudel? When do you first tell the police that you introduced Paolo Trudel personally to Michel Giroux? Was it in those two - one of those two statements?

A. I don't know, I'd have to go through them.Q. Okay, I'll refer you, sir, just to speed

things along, to the second of those two statements, the 8th of January statement, your second answer.

A. Yes.Q. That's where you say it.

D. Sigouin - Re-Ex.

(Cooper)

10387.

A. Yes.Q. And this is the statement that Ti-Guy Trudel

says he has at home.A. Yes.Q. How did you feel about that?A. Well, I didn't feel too good.Q. It wasn't just implicating him in drugs, was

it, sir?A. No.Q. It drew a connection between Paolo Trudel and

Michel Giroux.A. Yes.MS. MULLIGAN: Again, Your Honour, I would ask my friend to stop leading the witness, please.MR. COOPER: I can't read my own writing here. Just a moment, please.MR. COOPER: Q. Oh, Ms. Mulligan pointed out

again on the 8th....THE COURT: Counsel is accusing you of doing what she can do rather well too on occasion, so maybe out of respect to her, you better not do it.MR. COOPER: I'll try and curb it, Your Honour.THE COURT: Yes, do.MR. COOPER: I don't....THE COURT: Don't editorialize at the end quite so much. Okay.MR. COOPER: Maybe just with lower volume.THE COURT: Lower volume, yes.MR. COOPER: Or no gestures. I'll put my hands in my pocket.THE COURT: That's right. What I'm saying,

D. Sigouin - Re-Ex.

(Cooper)

10387.

members of the jury, is both counsel tend to do this on occasion. We must suffer that as judges. But we'll do it, you know, with our heads up and smiles on our faces.MR. COOPER: I recall a story, Your Honour, in the Supreme Court of Canada, counsel was being remonstrated by the bench saying: "Well, Mr. so and so, we've heard these submissions - or we've read your submissions. You're saying the same thing." He said: "Yes, Your Honour, but you haven't heard them with gestures."THE COURT: "You haven't heard them with gestures." Okay. I understand.MR. COOPER: Q. Ms. Mulligan suggested to you,

sir, that on the 8th of January 1991, in the second of these two statements: did you tell the police you introduced Rick Trudel and Michel Giroux? And you said no, and that's correct, but you've just pointed out the business about introducing Paolo and Michel Giroux.

A. Yes.Q. And it isn't, as Ms. Mulligan pointed out,

until 1994, when you tell Officers Doherty and Snider about the introduction with...

THE COURT: Rick.MR. COOPER: Q. ...Rick Trudel.A. Yes.Q. Just one other point, then, sir. You talked

about, with Ms. Mulligan - a part that I mentally didn't remember her mention about the 21st of October 1992 interview - and that's when Riddell puts down the photographs of Michel Giroux and Manon Bourdeau...

A. Yes.

D. Sigouin - Re-Ex.

(Cooper)

10387.

Q. ...in front of you.A. Yes.Q. And these are people who had been to your

house?A. Yes.Q. And they're in the pictures; they're dead;

there's pools of blood, Ms. Mulligan pointed out, correct?A. Yes.Q. It wasn't a very attractive situation, you

already indicated.A. That's right.Q. And Riddell said that you'd have to say -

you'd have to say what you knew. You'd have to say more.A. Yes.Q. Notwithstanding - regardless of what he did

there, did you tell him the whole truth even that day?A. No, I didn't.Q. Did you hold back evidence, sir?A. Yes.Q. You did know more?A. Yes, well, I wasn't answering all his

questions.Q. So Riddell was right, in that respect, you

did know more.A. Yes.MR. COOPER: Thank you, sir, those are all my questions.THE COURT: Thank you very much for your help, sir, and good job tomorrow.THE WITNESS: Thank you.THE COURT: Members of the jury, we're finished for the day. Regular time tomorrow.

D. Sigouin - Re-Ex.

(Cooper)

10387.

...JURY RETIRES (16:35 p.m.)**********

C O U R T A D J O U R N E D**********

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that theforegoing is a true and accuratetranscription of the recordings,to the best of my skill andability.

.................................Isabelle Olson, B.A.,Certified Court Reporter.

Certification

10392.

kangaroojustice.org€¦ · web view--- upon commencing at 10:18 a.m.--- accused present--- in...

Documents