Chapter 23
Closing Time
"After 3 days of testimony, the case is now in your hands," Elijah told the jury. "When you go into the deliberation room, you will be deciding on the guilt or innocence of Elliot Ravenwood. You are probably going to be asking many questions. While these questions might be important, there's only one that really matters-- has the crown proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? This is the standard of proof that we have in this country, and the only thing that you can consider when determining the innocence or guilt of the accused.
So I ask you the question: 'Was Elliot Ravenwood proven to have committed 1st Degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt?' Now you probably know what my answer would be, but I prefer to let the evidence speak for itself.
First, the crown contends that my client bought a torch using his own name, brought it to the park, sabotaged the Colossus, and then, instead of disposing of the incriminating evidence, kept it in his trunk for the police to find. Does that sound like a logical thing to do by a person who obviously planned an ingenious murder? If you were the ones committing this murder, would you have done something so stupid? The obvious answer is no. The only criminals who act this reckless are the ones that are depicted in the numerous mystery novels that are found at your local library. What makes the crown's conclusion even more untenable is the fact that there weren't any fingerprints on the torch. Now think about it. The crown wants you to conclude that Elliot Ravenwood remembered to wipe his fingerprints off of the torch, but not remember to dispose it. As my father used to tell me when I was younger, this theory doesn't pass the smell test.
Next, the crown wants you to believe that my client committed this murder because he was afraid of being exposed as an embezzler. We now know that Mr. Ravenwood isn't guilty of those charges, so again, the crown's evidence has been refuted.
Finally, they want you to believe that since my client was seen near the ride on the night before the murder, that he must have sabotaged it. They have not explained how Mr. Amherst, the park's security guard, noted that my client wasn't dirty after almost 45 minutes of using an acetylene torch. They also didn't show how my client was supposed to have sabotaged the computer system. We have presented evidence that the ride's computer was so sophisticated, that even an expert thought it was tamper proof. If this is true, then it would have taken another expert to successfully alter the program without other people finding out. My client is a lot of things, but a computer genius he is not. There is no way that he could have re-programmed this computer. So, as has clearly been shown, the crown hasn't proven these points either.
But even if you can get past these assertions and actually believe that the crown has established these facts, you must also consider that the defense has shown that it is not only possible for someone else to have committed this crime, but that it is highly probable that someone else did in fact do just that.
To understand how we have done this, you must ask yourself a few questions. To begin with, who had a real motive for murdering Scott Taylor? The crown contended that my client did. But the evidence doesn't support that because Elliot Ravenwood did not embezzle from the park. That leaves us with the answer being Audrey Taylor and Daniel Morris. After all, it was they who swindled $1 million away from the park. They knew that unless Scott Taylor was killed, that eventually he would find out about their involvement in the theft, and report it to the police.
Next, who had the real means to murder Scott Taylor? Again, the crown contended that my client did because he was seen walking down the steps of the ride the night that it was sabotaged. But my client did not have any experience with acetylene torches, so how could he torch the ride, let alone come down its steps completely clean? With this being the case, the answer then returns to Audrey Taylor and Daniel Morris. Having worked as a computer programmer, it was easy for Mr. Morris to have altered the ride's safety program without anyone else knowing. Who else besides Mr. Morris could have done this? Certainly not my client, for he barely knows how to run his home computer, let alone a program as sophisticated as this one was.
As for Mrs. Taylor, she worked as a welder when she was younger, providing her with the required expertise to torch the casings just enough to insure disaster, but not enough to be noticed before the inaugural ride. The lack of detection was also ensured because Daniel Morris, her accomplice in this crime intentionally did not inspect the ride that morning. They made it look like an accident, but an accident it was not.
Finally, who had the real opportunity to murder Scott Taylor? It was certainly not my client, because he was in his office until midnight. Now I don't want to sound like a broken record, but that only leaves us with Audrey Taylor and Daniel Morris. Sure they said that they had checked into a hotel that night, but besides the front desk, who actually saw them together for the rest of the night? The answer is nobody did. The room service attendant saw Mrs. Taylor the first time, but not Daniel Morris. That's because Daniel Morris was out buying the acetylene torch. The second time, the attendant saw Daniel Morris, but not Audrey Taylor. That's because Mrs. Taylor was at the park, sabotaging the Colossus. How do I know this? It's because of the Highway 407 logs. These logs place Mrs. Taylor in her husband's car the night before the murder because she witnessed an accident on the 407 at the very time she was supposed to be in her hotel room. The only way she could have swapped cars, was if she was at the park before 7:00 PM that night. If she had her husband's car at 7 o'clock, she had it later on that night, when logs showed that the car returned to the park. It was assumed that Scott Taylor returned to the park that night, when in actuality, his wife returned and used his ID badge and fingerprint to gain access. It was at this time, between 11:00 PM and 1:00 AM, that she sabotaged the ride. Now she denies this description of the events, but I assure you that it is the absolute truth.
So you see ladies and gentlemen, we have clearly shown that there is reasonable doubt that my client committed this murder. In fact I can go further in saying that there's more than just reasonable doubt, there's significant doubt that my client committed this murder. In all fairness, and in the interest of justice, you must therefore find my client not guilty of these charges. Thank you very much."
With Elijah sitting down, it was now the crown's turn to provide a closing statement.
"I thank you ladies and gentlemen of the jury for being attentive and taking notes throughout the course of this trial," Samantha began by saying. "The defense counsel just got up here and gave a great oratory on reasonable doubt. He's correct in saying that the crown must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the standard of proof that our justice system demands. It is the only fair way to make sure that the innocent go free and the guilty go to jail. It is the only way to insure that the police follow the law and the crown follows procedure when prosecuting crimes. It is at the very foundation of our criminal justice system.
After that great explanation however, his speech sort of ran into the ditch. You see, he seems to think that suppositions and innuendo take the place of fact in showing reasonable doubt. His entire story about Mrs. Taylor and Mr. Morris is entirely based on his opinion. There's not one shred of proof. He doesn't have an eyewitness who would place Mr. Morris in the store buying the torch. That type of evidence could prove crippling to our case for it would clearly show that Elliot Ravenwood did not buy the torch. This would obviously lead us to question that if Elliot Ravenwood didn't buy the torch, did he have the opportunity to commit the murder since he and Mr. Morris did not even know each other. If Mr. Deville is so certain that Mr. Morris bought the torch, why didn't he produce the seller of the torch in court? The answer is because Mr. Morris didn't buy the torch, his client, Elliot Ravenwood did.
Mr. Deville also doesn't have any eyewitnesses to place Audrey Taylor at the park sabotaging the Colossus. Certainly a security guard would have noticed a beautiful woman in the park had she been there. Cer
tainly he would have smelled her perfume when he went to investigate the claims that Mr. Ravenwood had seen something going on near the Colossus. But the security guard neither saw nor smelt any of these things because Audrey Taylor was not at the park that night. Elliot Ravenwood was at the park, and he was seen near the ride. So what if he wasn't dirty. For all we know, he might have put on a pair of overalls to protect his clothing. The fact of the matter is that he was the only one seen near the ride that night. He is the only one with the opportunity. As for Audrey Taylor having witnessed an accident on the 407, it only serves as a distraction in order to confuse you. She could have witnessed that accident while on an evening walk since the highway is only a 10 minute walk from the hotel. Mr. Deville doesn't have one piece of physical evidence to place Mrs. Taylor behind the wheel of her husband's car, so you can't consider his suppositions as evidence. You can't acquit based on an opinion. You must have facts, and Mr. Deville doesn't have facts. Let's examine his closing arguments more closely and the lack of evidence for Mr. Deville's claims will become quite clear to you.
Mr. Deville begins by telling you that since Elliot Ravenwood didn't commit the embezzlement, that he couldn't have possibly had a motive to kill Scott Taylor. This is patently false. First of all, although he knew that he didn't do it, the fact remained that Mr. Taylor thought he did. If the word got out that the accused was even suspected of fraud or theft, then Mr. Ravenwood could kiss his reputation good-bye and thus any chance of advancement. No, Elliot Ravenwood had a motive, and it was to keep Scott Taylor from even announcing that he might be involved with the embezzlement. He devised the plan in his office that night, and then executed it.
Mr. Deville then proceeded to tell you that because nobody saw the accused torch the ride and because the accused is not skilled with an acetylene torch that he couldn't have possibly done it. This again is false. The whole idea of this crime was to have no eye witnesses. The lack of eye witnesses doesn't prove a thing. And whether or not the accused is skilled with a torch does not mean that he couldn't have used one. People do things that they're not skilled at all the time. If people didn't, you wouldn't see all these remodeling shows on TV trying to fix what an unskilled person thought they could do themselves. Inexperience does not mean that the accused didn't do it.
The lack of fingerprints on the torch also does not prove that the accused didn't do it. It certainly doesn't prove that this was the work of a moron. People do funny things under pressure and I'm sure Mr. Ravenwood thought that he would have time to get rid of the torch. He simply wiped off his prints so that he wouldn't forget later. That is reasonable to deduce. To prove my point, I ask you, just as Mr. Deville did, that if you would have committed this crime, wouldn't it have been easy to assume that you would have had time to dispose of the weapon later. After all, it would certainly take police days to investigate the crime and develop suspects, giving you ample time to dispose of the torch. In this case though, you would have been unlucky because the police found out about the embezzlement investigation early and immediately made an arrest. They then had probable cause to search your car, where the torch and bolts were found. So you see, even though you're smart and intelligent, it doesn't make you immune from making a mistake in judgment that could end up proving you guilty of murder.
Mr. Deville then went on to challenge the signed receipt, saying that Daniel Morris forged it. This was pure speculation on the defense counsel's part without any proof to back it up. Again I ask you, where was the shop keeper to verify this. He wasn't called because Daniel Morris didn't forge the signature, for it was the real signature of Elliot Ravenwood.
Finally, the defense tried to pin the murder on someone else, again without a shred of proof. I know the defense does not have to show proof, but in order to establish reasonable doubt, there must be a reasonable suspicion that someone else did it. This is not the case in this instance. Audrey Taylor said she didn't kill her husband and was nowhere near the park. No matter what the defense speculated related to the switching of cars and the witnessing of an accident, the fact of the matter is that nothing places Audrey Taylor behind the wheel of her husband's car at anytime on the day before the murder. To assume otherwise is to engage in speculation and ignore established facts.
What are those facts? The torch that sabotaged the ride was found in the trunk of Mr. Ravenwood's car next to a receipt of purchase bearing his signature. Mr. Ravenwood was seen near the ride by a security guard right around the time the ride was sabotaged. Mr. Ravenwood had the motive to keep the false charges about embezzlement from ever surfacing so that he could save his own skin. This clearly shows a deliberate plan to kill Scott Taylor. You have been given means, motive, and opportunity. All of these have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore in the interest of justice that you find Mr. Ravenwood guilty of murder in the 1st Degree. Thank you."
"Thank you counselors," Justice Richardson said. "Now it is my turn. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the case is now being presented to you for adjudication. You have heard from the crown and the defense in the matter of the Crown v. Elliot Ravenwood. You must now decide if the charge of murder in the 1st degree was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This involves three things: was a murder committed, was a 1st degree murder committed and if so, was it proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. If you answer 'no' to any of these aspects you must find the accused not guilty. To fully be able to consider this case though, I must quickly educate you about the law in Canada.
First, murder is not just the killing of another person. It is defined in Section 229 of the Criminal Code of Canada as follows:
(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being means to cause his death, or means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;
(b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or
(c) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.
In other words, murder is not an accident. Murder in the 1st degree is defined in Section 231 of the Criminal Code as being planned and deliberate.
In order to convict, you must believe that the crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt does not eliminate all doubt, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt eliminates the possibility that a reasonable person would not be able to convict based on the evidence presented. You must find the accused not guilty of 1st degree murder, unless the crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the accused who committed the offense at the time and place described in the indictment. Specifically, the crown must have proven each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Number one: did the accused commit an unlawful act? This not only has to do with whether the accused actually committed the crime set forth in the indictment, but if the accused did kill Mr. Taylor, was the killing the result of an unlawful act. Unless you are satisfied that the crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed an unlawful act, you must render a verdict of not guilty. If however you are satisfied that the crown has proven this element beyond a reasonable doubt, you must move onto the next question.
Number two: did the unlawful act of the accused cause Mr. Taylor's death? To prove that the unlawful act caused the victim's death, the crown must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the accused contributed significantly to the death of Mr. Taylor. Unless you are satisfied that the
crown has proven this part of the case beyond a reasonable doubt, you must return a verdict of not guilty. If you are satisfied, then you must move onto the third question.
Number three: did the accused have the intent required to commit murder? To prove this, the crown would had to have shown beyond a reasonable doubt, that either the accused meant to cause Mr. Taylor's death, or that the accused meant to cause bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause the death of Mr. Taylor. To determine this, you must look at all of the evidence presented in the court, including the nature of the harm inflicted. You may take into account that a person usually knows what the predictable outcome of their actions would be, and means to bring them about. However, you are not required to draw that inference about the accused. Unless you are completely satisfied that the crown has proven this aspect of the case beyond a reasonable doubt, you must return a verdict of not guilty of murder, but guilty of the included offense of manslaughter. If you are satisfied that the crown has proven this element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, you must move on to the fourth and final question.
Number four: Was the murder of Mr. Taylor, by the accused, planned and deliberate? To prove 1st degree murder, the crown must also have proven that the intended murder was planned and deliberate. This term is not the same as intention. Planned means a calculated scheme that has been carefully thought out. The plan does not have to be complex, nor does it have to have been planned out over a long period of time. Deliberate means that the plan was considered, and not impulsive. It is up to you to decide whether or not the actions of the accused were planned and deliberate. Unless you are satisfied that the crown has proven this beyond a reasonable doubt, you must return a not guilty verdict on the charge of 1st degree murder, but a guilty verdict of the included offence of 2nd degree murder. A verdict of manslaughter is not an option. If you are satisfied, then you must return a verdict of guilty on the charge of 1st degree murder.
Your verdict must be unanimous. You may not consider any mitigating factors as to why the accused may be justified in committing this crime. You may not consider any evidence that was not presented at trial. You may only consider the testimony and evidence given to you during the last three days. Should you request anything, you may send a note to the bailiff at which point the court would re-convene at the earliest possible time to hear the request. As stated at the beginning of the trial, your deliberations begin at 9:00 AM tomorrow morning in Jury Deliberation Room # 7. They will end at 5:00 PM each weekday or when a unanimous verdict has been reached. When a verdict has been reached, you will immediately call the bailiff, who will then inform the court. The verdict will then be read at 9:00 AM in this courtroom on the weekday after that announcement. I advise you to go home and get a good night sleep, and remind you that you are under strict orders to not discuss this case with anyone. With that, this court stands adjourned until such time as a verdict has been reached."
The courtroom gallery quickly filed out. Elijah told Elliot and Pamela to go home and speak to no one, not even their families until the verdict is rendered. He also told them to meet him the next morning in his office, where they could wait temporarily to see if the jury reaches a quick verdict. Elijah, impressed with the results in the courtroom today, decided that tonight after church he would not cook but instead take his sister out to a nice restaurant to celebrate the near end of a difficult case.
**********