Chapter 14
Bring It On
January in Toronto can be down right miserable most of the time. Between the vast quantity of snow and vicious winds, standing outside would be totally uncomfortable. But these conditions didn't deter news reporters, especially when there is a murder trial to cover.
As Elliot, Elijah and Becca approached the courthouse, reporters were screaming the usual questions like 'Did you kill Scott Taylor?', 'Do you plan to be acquitted?', and 'How do you plan to prove your innocence?'. Elijah quickly told the reporters that there would be no comment as they rushed up the stairs and into the warmth of the building.
Once inside the University Avenue Courthouse, Elijah told Elliot to go up to the courtroom and wait while he and Becca went to get robed. Heading towards the elevator, Elijah saw out of the corner of his eye that Samantha Howard was coming their way.
"Professor Deville, it's so nice to see you again."
"Ms. Howard, to what do I owe this visit?"
"My boss sent me over to you to give you one last chance to settle the case. The deal is 'Murder in the 2nd Degree' with 15 years in prison and 5 years probation as well as no charges for the embezzlement. "But," she warned, "this deal is only on the table until the case begins. Once the trial starts, the crown will see this through to the end, no matter what."
"Now why would we take a deal like that?" Elijah asked.
"Because, the crown's case is airtight. It's a slam dunk. We have the murder weapon found in the back of your client's car, we have records showing that your client was embezzling from the company; we have testimony that your client had an argument with the victim on the night before the murder. We have your client dead to rights, so unless you want him to spend the next 25-35 years in prison, I'd suggest you take the deal," Samantha said.
"First of all, your case is entirely circumstantial. You have no eye witnesses. Second, if your case was so airtight, then your boss wouldn't have sent you down here moments before the trial begins with a plea bargain. I don't care how backlogged the courts are here in Toronto, he just wouldn't do it if the case was a guaranteed conviction. If that's all you got, we're done here," Elijah said, as he and Becca stepped into the elevator.
"So then I guess this means that you aren't taking the deal?" Samantha yelled.
"Bring it on!" Elijah yelled back as the elevator door closed, "If your case is so great, prove it in court."
Upstairs in the courtroom, the case was the first on the docket. The clerk quickly called the court to order and announced that the Honorable Amy Richardson would be presiding over the trial. Elijah winced as he saw Justice Richardson enter the room, as he and this judge have not 'seen eye to eye' on a few cases in the past.
Once everyone sat down, the clerk called the first case.
"Case #34562, the Crown vs. Elliot-Travis Ravenwood. The charges are Murder in the 1st degree, Theft over $5,000 and Fraud over $5,000. Mr. Ravenwood pleaded not guilty to all charges in Ontario Superior Court, and requested a judge and jury trial. The crown will be represented by Ms. Samantha Miranda Howard. Mr. Ravenwood will be represented by Mr. Elijah Alistair Deville and Ms. Rebecca Allison Deville of the firm Deville and Deville, Associates at Law."
"Very well," Justice Richardson said. "Having examined the pre-trial reports, it has been determined that the crown will be presenting this court with 3 hours worth of testimony from 7 witnesses, with an additional 1 hour for opening and closing remarks. The defense has submitted that, should it present a defense, it will present 1 hour of testimony from 1 witness with the option of an additional 2 hours for any additional witnesses that may surface. The defense will also be afforded with an additional 1 hour for opening and closing remarks. This court has set aside an additional 1 hour for rebuttal witnesses, and also reserves the right to extend time if necessary. Having accepted the pre-trial report, I find no reason why this case shouldn't be tried in a timely manner. Therefore, the court's schedule will be as follows:
1. The crown will present its opening arguments of no more than 30 minutes, as well as its 3 hours worth of testimony today, January 10, 2011 in this courtroom.
2. On Tuesday January 11, 2011 at 1:30 pm in this courtroom, the defense will present its opening arguments of no more than 30 minutes, as well as its 1 hour worth of testimony plus any additional time it wishes to use, up to a limit of 2 hours.
3. On Wednesday January 12, 2011 at 2:30 pm, in Courtroom 302 downstairs, the crown may present any rebuttal witnesses. The time for this portion of the trial shall not exceed 1 hour. Both counselors will then present their closing arguments using the remainder of their 1 hour time limit set aside at pre-trial.
4. The jury will receive their instructions, and deliberations will begin on Thursday January 13, 2011. The jury is reminded not to discuss this case with anyone during or after the trial. At no time shall your deliberations be made public unless directed to by this court. Jury deliberations will continue on weekdays from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm with 1 hour set aside for lunch, as well as 2 fifteen minute breaks. Unless circumstances change, the jury will not need to be sequestered for this trial.
5. Once a unanimous verdict is reached, the jury shall inform the sheriff, who will report back to the court. The verdict will be heard at 9:00 am, the weekday after the report of a verdict has been received. The courtroom for this session has yet to be determined.
6. Should the accused be found guilty, a date will then be set for sentencing.
Is counsel satisfied with this schedule?" Both Samantha and Elijah stated that the schedule was suitable for them. "Very well, Ms. Howard, please present your opening arguments."
Samantha got up out of her seat, went to the podium between the counsels' table, faced the jury and began to speak.
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. My name is Samantha Howard, and I am the crown attorney charged with prosecuting this case. I'd like you to picture in your minds July 1st, 2010. It was a gorgeous day, lots of sunshine, and not a cloud in the sky. It was hot, but not so hot that you needed a change of shirt by noon. It is on days like these that families spend plenty of time outside, either going to the park for a barbeque, going to the beach for some fun in the sun, or going to an amusement park for a day of thrills and excitement. The latter is what Scott Taylor, the CEO of Canada's AdventureLand, and his family decided to do.
The main attraction that day was not the small mundane rollercoasters that had been staples of this park for years, but a brand new coaster, the Colossus, which was being advertised as one of the fastest and mind-blowing coasters in North America. It reached heights of over 50 meters, and speeds of almost 100 km/hr. Personally, I wouldn't be caught dead on this rollercoaster, but I can see how this ride would attract thousands of thrill seekers. It was this ride that Scott Taylor was going to inaugurate that day by being the first rider.
Seeing as how he was the CEO of the park, he knew all the intimate details concerning the ride's specifications and safety precautions, so he would not have any reason to fear a malfunction. He also knew that the ride had been inspected the day before, with not even a minor infraction being registered. With all of this knowledge in mind, he boarded this rollercoaster with anticipation for the adventure of a lifetime. It was an adventure that he hoped to share with his daughter, but sadly it was an adventure that he did not survive.
What killed Mr. Taylor? Was it a heart attack caused by the intense sensations experienced during the ride? No, it was sabotage, pure and simple. Someone had used an acetylene torch to damage the wheel casings of the car that Mr. Taylor was sitting in, ensuring that it would derail. After a thorough investigation, this perpetrator was discovered to be Elliot Ravenwood. What was his motive you might ask? It was to cover up a year's worth of embezzlement which was about to be made public.
So, the case before you is a simple one: did the accused Elliot Ravenwood, embezzle over $1 million from the company that he worked for, and
did he kill his boss, Scott Taylor in order to cover up his crime? You will hear evidence to that fact in this trial. The evidence will be clear, plain and irrefutable, and will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Elliot Ravenwood committed the crimes that he is charged with.
To prove this, the crown will present you with testimony that shows that Mr. Taylor had uncovered an embezzlement scheme where over $1 million was diverted from the company accounts into a dummy corporation owned by the accused. You will also hear testimony from Mr. Taylor's secretary that when confronted about the theft, the victim and the accused had a loud argument that ended with both men storming out of the room. You will hear eye-witness testimony from the park's security guard that he saw the accused coming down from the ride's platform at precisely the time when the ride was said to have been sabotaged. Finally, you will hear testimony that the very torch that has been identified as the one that almost removed the wheel casings of the ride was found in the trunk of the car of the accused. All of this evidence points to the guilt of Elliot Ravenwood.
Now when the defense stands up here tomorrow, they're going to throw two big words at you: 'circumstantial evidence'. They're going to say that because there were no eye witnesses that saw Mr. Ravenwood torch the rollercoaster, and because Mr. Ravenwood denies ever stealing any money, that the evidence is therefore weak due to the fact that it relies only on inferences drawn by the crown. They're going to tell you that because of this, you must acquit the accused. I urge you to reject this argument. Why? Because criminals are convicted solely on circumstantial evidence all of the time. If you accept the reasoning that no one can be convicted without a positive ID from a credible eyewitness or some sort of physical evidence placing an accused at the scene of the crime, then you would be allowing rapists to go free, you would be allowing thieves to go free, and you would be allowing murderers to go free. No, you must reject this argument, and focus solely on the evidence. The evidence speaks loud and clear: Elliot Ravenwood killed Scott Taylor in order to cover up his theft of $1 million. You therefore must find him guilty of the crimes he is accused of. Thank you."
**********