ALIBI EVIDENCE
Fact:
The deceased, Laine Berube, was shot at 9:37-9:39PM on January 26, 1994.
Comments: In addition to Crown withholding volumes of case disclosure from Defence during trial, and police (while investigating) Crown quickly retreated from hearing evidence and questioning witnesses which benefited the Defence of Kevin MacKinnon.
All of this made it difficult if not impossible to have a fair trial.
Kevin: ... “At trial it was like watching one of those kid’s toys that roll around and changes direction every time it bumps into something. Every time Crown was questioning witnesses and began to bump into something - like the truth - which favoured Defence and helped to show it was Not me, she quickly turned to another line of questioning or a different topic. I don't know what it was like for the jury, but for me it was ....... well, there is no word I know which really describes it. It was like always on the edge of expecting the truth to suddenly come out and end the nightmare, and everyone would see and know I did NOT kill Laine! That I was NOT even there! I think everyone has been accused of something they did not do, at some time in their lives. So I don’t think it is too hard for people to understand what it feels like; and when they are hoping or expecting the truth to come out and clear them. Even if it’s about something simple. And with that in mind, it is not too difficult to understand how it feels when you are not cleared, and the truth is kept from the one’s judging you; or some-how they don’t seem to see it staring them in the face. And you’re left with this cloud hanging over you - when you know you don’t deserve it !!”
Facts:
-Barb, Jackie and Mark collectively gave evidence Kevin Mackinnon was visiting them in / at Barb's home from about 9:15 9:25 pm, through to some time after 10:00 pm during the evening of January 26, 1994.
Facts:
- Barb's residence was located on the East side in the City of Airdrie, Alberta –north of the city of Calgary.
- At trial a specified route and driving time was given as the least amount of time to travel one way - between the crime-scene (but only to the South end boundry of the city of Airdrie) of thirty-five (35) minutes.
Comments:
This did NOT include the added time to actually travel to Barb's residence, and was also misrepresented by police and Crown to present an image of the least amount of travel time upon the mind of the jury.
This does NOT include the time it would have taken to somehow get into the crime-scene/ house {and be in there for who knows how long}; wait around for Berube to "coincidentally" go into the basement first {as emphasized it occured, in evidence}; shoot Berube; and then escape.
Facts:
Evidence was given that while at Barb's, Kevin behaved in a quiet and ordinary manner normal for him, and he did NOT act tense, anxious or fidgety in any way.
-Kevin was sober, and only drank water {as was common for him}.
-Kevin wore his usual type of clothing, of: jeans, shirt and sweater; No coat, and {brown}work style running shoes.
- Evidence was also given that Kevin remained at Barb's until being called away by Scott B
- Scott phoned twice (2) trying to get Kevin to leave Barb's and go meet him.
Facts:
- Jackie, Barb, and Mark all testified that at the time Kevin arrived at Barb's home tharound the same time Scott was leaving.
- They all gave evidence Scott and Kevin crossed paths - ie: that one was coming in as the other was going out.
- The jury specifically requested further clarification on this fact, {obviously in relation to the alibi evidences}. However, the trial judge improperly refused to allow the evidence to be read back to the jury {as they requested}; and instead, the judge provided the Crown’s copy of {unseen by Defence, and unverified} transcript to be given to the jury - rather than the evidence properly being read back to the jury in open Court.
Comments:
During the trial, Crown tried to portray that Kevin had made multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact and speak with Scott immediately prior to Kevin’s arrival at Barb's.
In fact, Crown portrayed this as even desperate attempts. However, there is No evidence to support this!!
If that were the case, then why was there No discussion or attempts by Kevin to talk with Scott when meeting/ crossing paths at Barb's ?!!
This becomes an important consideration when looking at how Crown portrayed this case generally as well, trying to string things together.
The following is an timeframe of events and evidence establishing Kevin’s whereabouts at the crucial time during the evening of January 26,1994.
7:00 pm Both Jackie and Barb begin to watch program {Beverly Hills 90210} at their own home{s}, respectively.
7:30 pm Calgary vs. Dallas hockey game begins on TV.
- Mark turns TV channel to watch hockey game.
- Jackie readies to go to Barb's {previously arranged}.
7:40 pm Mark drives Jackie over to Barb's and drops her off, and he goes to his guitar lesson
8:05 pm Mark arrives home and resumes watching the hockey game.
8:10 pm Scott phones Mark {re: Blakeman did Not want to go to his own home.}
8:20 pm Scott arrives at the home of Mark {about ten (10) minutes after phoning}.
8:30 pm Jackie burns her hand and Barb phones Mark to bring ‘First Aid’ kit.
8:38 pm Mark and Scott arrive at Barb's within ten (10) minutes of phone call, in Marks car.
8:50 pm Mark and Scott return to Barb's {each in their own car} and stay.
- Mark begins to watch the hockey game, sitting on the couch with a fifth person R.L. who was already at Barb's.
around 9:15pm Scott preparing to leave Veno’s
So much for integrity in the Alberta Courts, eh!...
around 9:25pm Kevin is seen through the living-room bay window overlooking the front yard and street walking to / arriving at Barb's
- Kevin arrives at Veno’s at same time as Blakeman leaves.
-There is No interaction between Blakeman and Kevin.
- As Kevin comes in, Jackie and Barb tell Kevin about Jackie's injury - seeking his opinion.
around 9:30pm Kevin looks at injury {which is a burn} and recommends icing it and to remove the oily cream which had been put on. Kevin gets and crushes some ice while getting himself a glass of water, and helps Jackie tend to her injury at the dining table
- Mark and R.L tire of watching the televised hockey game, and begin to play an electronic ‘Nintendo Hockey’ game instead - while also flipping back and forth keeping an eye on the televised hockey game between Calgary and Dallas, as they play Nintendo.
-The TV is turned up to compete with stereo music - which Veno turned on.
***9:37-9:39pm - This is the very time when Laine Berube is shot in the city of Calgary.
around 9:40pm ten to fifteen minutes after leaving, Scott phones - Barb answers - and Scott asks to speak to Kevin.
-Kevin takes call, and - due to the noise- steps into porch area {which had No door in/out by dining area} and briefly talks to Scott
-When asked what Scott wanted, Kevin relays that Scott wanted to see / meet Kevin at a Bar downtown {Airdrie}.
-Kevin in No rushed manner sits and “chit-chats” with everyone in the living room area, watching R.L and Mark play Nintendo hockey, and channel surfing - between breaks.
around 9:45pm -Scott again phones Barb's
- Barb: “Hello”
- Scott: “Hi, Kevin still there?”
- Barb: “Ya,”
- Scott:“Well, can you kick him out or something. Tell him to get going.”
- Barb: “Ya, ok...”
- Scott: “I’m waiting. Bye.” - hangs up.
- Barb: “Bye.” - hangs up.
- Barb gets off phone, and tells Kevin that Scott “is waiting. Shouldn’t you get going?”
- Kevin indicates he is Not much interested -ie; shrugs shoulders, and in No rush manner continues to stay and socialize.
- About ten (10) to fifteen (15) minutes later Barb asks Kevin if he is going to go meet Scott. Kevin says, “Ya, I guess so.” and a few minutes later he leaves Barb's to walk back home - to get his car -to drive to downtown Airdrie.
Summary Comments:
In looking at the clear alibi evidence consolidated here; it is hard to not wonder how such obvious evidence was over-looked by the jury. We suspect it was because the Crown prosecutor clearly manipulated the evidence - presenting it piecemeal.
We must remember that at trial it was Not presented in such an honest and straight-forward manner by Crown. And that all the Crown prosecutor was trying to do was to simply win a conviction - by hook or by crook - and was not truly in search for the truth as was her duty.
The evidence presented by Crown at trial was so piecemealed and hop-scotch, that even putting together this time-line {above} from the trial transcripts {and other info} was Not a quick or easy thing to do.
This does Not excuse the jury’s responsibility, and seems they wanted it handed to them {on a platter, so to speak}, like this here. Which of course did Not happen.
Legal:
Simply put, the Crown has a legal duty to prove each element of the case alleged against a person. This includes disproving - with actual evidence{s} - defencees against the charge. It also means the Crown is not to exclude or pervert evidence in favour of Defence - especially that of exculpatory evidence{s}; and Crown must prove each element of it’s case against a person.
Obsuring evidence, especially which benifits the Defence, is Not disproving those elements of the Crown’s case. In this case, part of the Defence was that Kevin was not there {at the crime scene} and had nothing to do with it. The Crown was obligated to prove these elements of her case and the charge of murder.
Kevin:...”When the jury came back and asked to hear the evidence, about when Scott and I crossed paths at Barb’s, and to have it read back to them in open court, I thought for sure they knew I did not/ could not have committed this heinous crime, and just wanted confirmation, that I was NOT Guilty. That I was NOT there, {at the crime scene} and did NOT kill Laine Berube.
But when I saw the Crown and Judge were NOT going to have that proof read back to them, in court, and the way they went about doing that... I knew ‘{the Crown and Judge}’ were up to something and something was wrong. I didn’t know exactly what, but it all just didn’t seem right.
It wasn’t until a lawyer told me later, that I understood ‘what’ and ‘why’ they did what they did. And it was all just, ‘tactical influencing of the jury’. The crown obviously knew she would not have won a conviction based on the evidence.
________________________________________________________________________
Want More Information...
Write to Kevin at:
Kevin MacKinnon :
Box 3000
Drumheller,
Alberta T0J 0Y0