Courtroom 120: "To publish or not to publish that is the question?"
Good Day Readers:
We planned to spend the morning in Courtroom 120 where Kelly Clarke is on trial for the April 2008 double murder of Joel and Magdalena Labossiere. The game plan was to devote the afternoon to 214 covering 4-Native Syndicate gang members being retried for the March 2005 beating death of inmate David Travares but got waylaid by what happened in 120 the proceedings of which were reported earlier this evening by Winnipeg Free Press Court Reporter Mike McIntyre (Clarke trial focuses on photos, evidence analysis). Counted at least 5 journalists covering the trial but did not notice Mr. McIntyre although it's certainly possible we missed him.
An important situation occured that is not mentioned in the McIntyre article. Very shortly after court reconvened lawyer Greg Brodsky armed with a copy of an article from one of Winnipeg's two major newspapers, began to argue vigorously before Queen's Bench Justice Richard A. Saull because of two comments made in one of them. We're not prepared to discuss what they were or in which publication because shortly thereafter the jury was excused. While there is no publication ban, all discussions during a jury's absence from a courtroom are strictly out of bounds. However, upon their return, Justice Saull strongly urged the jurors to disregard anything they hear, read or see in the media or the internet about the tial reminding them only that evidence presented in court is admissible.
Below we've reproduced links to Monday's coverage from both The Winnipeg Sun, as well as, The Winnipeg Free Press without further comment.
Even before today's events unfolded we had become increasingly concerned about the parameters surrounding publication bans so much so last week we attempted to set up a meeting with a Senior Law Courts Official. This has yet to happen but only because of our conflicting schedules. The concern: what appears to be a lack of clarity we've encountered on the subject in talking with various officials. If a major newspaper with editors and lawyers on retainer could publish information that raised the specter of a possible mistrial, what chance does a lowly Ma and Pa operation such as CyberSmokeBlog with no formal legal training stand?
One of the suggestions we'll be making is the Law Courts organize a half day seminar presented by a Justice/Judge for reporters covering hearings/trials to outline the do's and don'ts of publication. It's reasonable to assume the vast preponderance of court reporters are not lawyers and, therefore, in no position to evaluate what evidence is admissible versus that which is not. As more and more people take to the internet spending increasing time online this is likely to become a bigger issue.
Another of our pet peeves is not being able to hear large portions of proceedings because the audio is deficient. After finishing in 120 we tail ended 214 and it happened yet again multiple times. A key witness had to be asked to please speak up. Cannot the volume of the desk microphones simply be increased?
There are several other items on our laundry list so the game plan is out of courtesy first discuss the various issues with the aforementioned Senior Court Official. Should the result prove unsatisfactory, we're prepared to cross the street to the Legislature to try to meet with our MLA Premier Selinger to pursue the matter. Oh for sure we do not expect an audience with him but there's no reason we cannot be granted access to one of his Assistants. Perhaps that will lead to the Minister of Justice's Office where again we certainly wouldn't expect a one-on-one with Mr. Swann but time with an Aid is not an unreasonable request.
Shortly, we'll be preparing a list of written recommendations for presentation. If there's any changes you'd like to see at the Law Courts please e-mail us. There is no reason to self-identify unless, of course, you wish to do so. POWER TO THE PEOPLE: Let's take back the Courthouse by being able to hear the proceedings!
Finally, we really appreciate Justice Saull because he speaks clearly and audibly - what a pleasant change!
Below is today's Winnipeg Free Press coverage of the Clarke trial followed by the two articles (Exhibits "A" and "B") from yesterday one of which caused the minor kerfuffle and talk of a mistrial.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
__________________________________________________
LATEST NEWS
Winnipeg Free Press - ONLINE EDITION
Clarke trial focuses on photos, evidence analysis
By Mike McIntyre
Tuesday, November 16, 2011
Joel and Magdalena Labossiere on their wedding day. The Winnipeg couple was shot to death in their home on April 20, 2008. (Family Handout/Winnipeg Free Press Archives)
A Winnipeg jury was taken on a forensic and photographic tour of a double-homicide investigation.
Constable Dave Matthews spent much of Wednesday detailing crime scene photos and evidence analysis done in the wake of the April 2008 killings.
Joël and Magdalena Labossière were shot dead inside their St. Vital home in what the Crown alleges was a planned attack. Their one-year-old daughter was in her crib at the time and wasn’t harmed. Her cries were answered about 10 hours after the shooting by a family friend who discovered the bodies and called 911.
Kelly John Clarke, 41, has pleaded not guilty to two counts of first-degree murder.
The seven-woman, five-man jury saw images of the two victims, who were both hit in the chest with separate blasts from a sawed-off shotgun. Joël was found slumped on the kitchen floor, while the shotgun shell was recovered on the counter next to a bowl of bananas. Magdalena was found in her bed, the shotgun shell under her body.
Police documented numerous locations of blood splatter and spent hours combing through the Chokecherry Cove home for clues. Matthews explained how numerous footwear impressions were lifted for analysis, while portions of the carpet were covered with tape to lift any possible evidence. Several areas of the home, including a front window that had been smashed, were examined for fingerprints.
Ultimately, none of the DNA evidence gathered from the scene linked Clarke to the crime.
The Crown’s case against Clarke rests largely on the shoulders of a star witness named Steven Solomon, who claims he was with Clarke during the planning and execution of the crime.
Crown attorney Gerry Bowering told jurors Clarke and Solomon had previously been in the same jail together. In early 2008, Clarke allegedly called Solomon and said he needed a favour. On one occasion, Solomon claims, he drove Clarke to St. Leon. Clark met up with a man — Jérôme Labossière — for a private chat.
Solomon claims that on the drive back to Winnipeg, Clarke began discussing a sinister plan. He wanted help in the kidnapping and torture of an individual they would then get to confess to the 2005 slayings of Fernand, Rita and Rémi Labossière, who were the parents and brother of Jérôme. Jurors have not been told about the status of that case and whether any arrests have been made.
Joël Labossière was one of seven grandchildren of Fernand and Rita to whom their estate had been willed. Fernand and Rita’s eight children were not included.
Bowering previously told jurors their deaths triggered an intense family battle over their estate, which remains before the courts. No other details were provided.
Solomon is expected to testify that he drove Clarke to purchase a sawed-off shotgun, five shotgun shells, several changes of clothing and even obtained a stolen car. Solomon claims Clarke called him on the night of April 20 saying: "We have to do it tonight."
They joined up, smoked some cocaine and went to Joël and Magdalena Labossière’s home. Solomon claims Clarke smashed the front glass window of the home with the butt of his gun, then stormed inside and killed both victims.
Solomon claims the next several hours were spent disposing of evidence. Finally, the stolen car was burned.
The double homicide would remain in limbo for more than a month until police arrested Solomon and two other men as part of a break-and-enter investigation. Solomon immediately confessed to that crime, then told police about Clarke’s alleged involvement.
Solomon was never charged and is instead a key Crown witness.
www.mikeoncrime.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Note
This morning one of these newspaper reports from yesterday triggered discussion of a mistrial while the other was judged unlikely to cause any difficulty for the court. Problem is, which one and why?
Exhibit "A"
Trial begins in infamous double murder
The Winnipeg Sun
Tuesday,November 15, 2011
http://www.winnipegsun.com/2011/11/15/murdered-for-million-dollar-estate
Exhibit "B"
Feud over estate sparked double slaying: Crown
The Winnipeg Free Press
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/Feud-over-estate-sparked-double-slaying-Crown-133925013.html
We planned to spend the morning in Courtroom 120 where Kelly Clarke is on trial for the April 2008 double murder of Joel and Magdalena Labossiere. The game plan was to devote the afternoon to 214 covering 4-Native Syndicate gang members being retried for the March 2005 beating death of inmate David Travares but got waylaid by what happened in 120 the proceedings of which were reported earlier this evening by Winnipeg Free Press Court Reporter Mike McIntyre (Clarke trial focuses on photos, evidence analysis). Counted at least 5 journalists covering the trial but did not notice Mr. McIntyre although it's certainly possible we missed him.
An important situation occured that is not mentioned in the McIntyre article. Very shortly after court reconvened lawyer Greg Brodsky armed with a copy of an article from one of Winnipeg's two major newspapers, began to argue vigorously before Queen's Bench Justice Richard A. Saull because of two comments made in one of them. We're not prepared to discuss what they were or in which publication because shortly thereafter the jury was excused. While there is no publication ban, all discussions during a jury's absence from a courtroom are strictly out of bounds. However, upon their return, Justice Saull strongly urged the jurors to disregard anything they hear, read or see in the media or the internet about the tial reminding them only that evidence presented in court is admissible.
Below we've reproduced links to Monday's coverage from both The Winnipeg Sun, as well as, The Winnipeg Free Press without further comment.
Even before today's events unfolded we had become increasingly concerned about the parameters surrounding publication bans so much so last week we attempted to set up a meeting with a Senior Law Courts Official. This has yet to happen but only because of our conflicting schedules. The concern: what appears to be a lack of clarity we've encountered on the subject in talking with various officials. If a major newspaper with editors and lawyers on retainer could publish information that raised the specter of a possible mistrial, what chance does a lowly Ma and Pa operation such as CyberSmokeBlog with no formal legal training stand?
One of the suggestions we'll be making is the Law Courts organize a half day seminar presented by a Justice/Judge for reporters covering hearings/trials to outline the do's and don'ts of publication. It's reasonable to assume the vast preponderance of court reporters are not lawyers and, therefore, in no position to evaluate what evidence is admissible versus that which is not. As more and more people take to the internet spending increasing time online this is likely to become a bigger issue.
Another of our pet peeves is not being able to hear large portions of proceedings because the audio is deficient. After finishing in 120 we tail ended 214 and it happened yet again multiple times. A key witness had to be asked to please speak up. Cannot the volume of the desk microphones simply be increased?
There are several other items on our laundry list so the game plan is out of courtesy first discuss the various issues with the aforementioned Senior Court Official. Should the result prove unsatisfactory, we're prepared to cross the street to the Legislature to try to meet with our MLA Premier Selinger to pursue the matter. Oh for sure we do not expect an audience with him but there's no reason we cannot be granted access to one of his Assistants. Perhaps that will lead to the Minister of Justice's Office where again we certainly wouldn't expect a one-on-one with Mr. Swann but time with an Aid is not an unreasonable request.
Shortly, we'll be preparing a list of written recommendations for presentation. If there's any changes you'd like to see at the Law Courts please e-mail us. There is no reason to self-identify unless, of course, you wish to do so. POWER TO THE PEOPLE: Let's take back the Courthouse by being able to hear the proceedings!
Finally, we really appreciate Justice Saull because he speaks clearly and audibly - what a pleasant change!
Below is today's Winnipeg Free Press coverage of the Clarke trial followed by the two articles (Exhibits "A" and "B") from yesterday one of which caused the minor kerfuffle and talk of a mistrial.
Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk
__________________________________________________
LATEST NEWS
Winnipeg Free Press - ONLINE EDITION
Clarke trial focuses on photos, evidence analysis
By Mike McIntyre
Tuesday, November 16, 2011
Joel and Magdalena Labossiere on their wedding day. The Winnipeg couple was shot to death in their home on April 20, 2008. (Family Handout/Winnipeg Free Press Archives)A Winnipeg jury was taken on a forensic and photographic tour of a double-homicide investigation.
Constable Dave Matthews spent much of Wednesday detailing crime scene photos and evidence analysis done in the wake of the April 2008 killings.
Joël and Magdalena Labossière were shot dead inside their St. Vital home in what the Crown alleges was a planned attack. Their one-year-old daughter was in her crib at the time and wasn’t harmed. Her cries were answered about 10 hours after the shooting by a family friend who discovered the bodies and called 911.
Kelly John Clarke, 41, has pleaded not guilty to two counts of first-degree murder.
The seven-woman, five-man jury saw images of the two victims, who were both hit in the chest with separate blasts from a sawed-off shotgun. Joël was found slumped on the kitchen floor, while the shotgun shell was recovered on the counter next to a bowl of bananas. Magdalena was found in her bed, the shotgun shell under her body.
Police documented numerous locations of blood splatter and spent hours combing through the Chokecherry Cove home for clues. Matthews explained how numerous footwear impressions were lifted for analysis, while portions of the carpet were covered with tape to lift any possible evidence. Several areas of the home, including a front window that had been smashed, were examined for fingerprints.
Ultimately, none of the DNA evidence gathered from the scene linked Clarke to the crime.
The Crown’s case against Clarke rests largely on the shoulders of a star witness named Steven Solomon, who claims he was with Clarke during the planning and execution of the crime.
Crown attorney Gerry Bowering told jurors Clarke and Solomon had previously been in the same jail together. In early 2008, Clarke allegedly called Solomon and said he needed a favour. On one occasion, Solomon claims, he drove Clarke to St. Leon. Clark met up with a man — Jérôme Labossière — for a private chat.
Solomon claims that on the drive back to Winnipeg, Clarke began discussing a sinister plan. He wanted help in the kidnapping and torture of an individual they would then get to confess to the 2005 slayings of Fernand, Rita and Rémi Labossière, who were the parents and brother of Jérôme. Jurors have not been told about the status of that case and whether any arrests have been made.
Joël Labossière was one of seven grandchildren of Fernand and Rita to whom their estate had been willed. Fernand and Rita’s eight children were not included.
Bowering previously told jurors their deaths triggered an intense family battle over their estate, which remains before the courts. No other details were provided.
Solomon is expected to testify that he drove Clarke to purchase a sawed-off shotgun, five shotgun shells, several changes of clothing and even obtained a stolen car. Solomon claims Clarke called him on the night of April 20 saying: "We have to do it tonight."
They joined up, smoked some cocaine and went to Joël and Magdalena Labossière’s home. Solomon claims Clarke smashed the front glass window of the home with the butt of his gun, then stormed inside and killed both victims.
Solomon claims the next several hours were spent disposing of evidence. Finally, the stolen car was burned.
The double homicide would remain in limbo for more than a month until police arrested Solomon and two other men as part of a break-and-enter investigation. Solomon immediately confessed to that crime, then told police about Clarke’s alleged involvement.
Solomon was never charged and is instead a key Crown witness.
www.mikeoncrime.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Note
This morning one of these newspaper reports from yesterday triggered discussion of a mistrial while the other was judged unlikely to cause any difficulty for the court. Problem is, which one and why?
Exhibit "A"
Trial begins in infamous double murder
The Winnipeg Sun
Tuesday,November 15, 2011
http://www.winnipegsun.com/2011/11/15/murdered-for-million-dollar-estate
Exhibit "B"
Feud over estate sparked double slaying: Crown
The Winnipeg Free Press
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/Feud-over-estate-sparked-double-slaying-Crown-133925013.html
posted by Clare L. Pieuk at 4:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home