GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

Do you know how difficult it is to reach that standard of proof in a courtroom? I would suggest that it is nearly impossible without a lot of luck, irrefutable relevant evidence and plain hard investigative work. I would also suggest that those conditions are seldom met even when convictions occur. This is exactly why wrongful convictions can and do occur.

In the recent Shafia murder case and trial much was made of the Defendants background and cultural beliefs including honour killings. Much was made of the father's wiretap conversations after the four bodies were found. Astoundingly little was made of the actual alleged physical murders of the three daughters and former wife. Inadequate theories were proposed including the four being murdered prior to their car going into the canal. No evidence was presented to support this. There was evidence that the son "bumped" the car that ended up in the canal. There was not evidence that the two now convicted parents were present at the alleged crime scene. There are far too many unanswered questions and unproven theories. Nevertheless the jury convicted the parents and son of first degree murder. I would agree that on the balance of probabilities all three were responsible for the deaths of four human beings. I do not agree beyond a resaonable doubt that these three were proven guilty of first degree murder. That is not a small distinction. That distinction is precisely why innocent Canadian citizens have been wrongfully convicted in the past. Juries are under immense pressure to find defendants guilty. The more heinous the crime the more pressure to convict someone, anyone. The idea that it's better for five killers to walk free than one innocent be convicted no longer exists.

Currently ongoing is the Ron Cyr trial in Kitchener. Again the Crown seems very strong on motive and very weak on evidence pointing to the husband. Yes they have a murder weapon and forensic evidence pointing towards two other individuals who are co-defendants. To date as reported in the K-W Record we have an undercover Police Officer, an ongoing affair, a life insurance policy but again very little hard evidence proving the husband was involved. It almost seems as in the Shafia case that the Crown's strategy is to show that the husband isn't a very nice person. Is this strategy due to a lack of hard evidence against him? If I was a betting man I'd bet that all three defendants will be found guilty of first degree murder by the jury. I would also be willing to bet that the evidence against him is cirumstantial and doesn't reach that very high standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No doubt guilty people get convicted on weak circumstantial evidence but so do innocent people. Readers keep clearly in mind that this trial is still ongoing and not only has there not been a verdict but also all the evidence hasn't been presented yet. Therefore my above opinions are exactly that: opinions not conclusions.