The defense lawyer told the mother of the accused and the accused that he was sure no one would convict a person on such circumstantial evidence...he was wrong! Was it because the defense lawyer thought this; that he didn't bring forward or point out so many things that could of possibly proved innocence or at the least given more reasonable doubt to the jurors? OR was it that the defense lawyer was being paid meagerly by legal aid in comparison of his regular fee and did not "dig" into the police notes, or present witnesses on his clients behalf as he could have. OR was this just another one of the cases that for the nativity of the accused and his family of legal proceedings, placed the life of the accused in the hands of a lawyer, and the crown thinking that the justice system would do everything humanly possible to make sure they had the correct person on trial and it wasn't done. Kevin's lawyer did not go out of his way to gather prove of this mans innocence, when there was prove to be had...in police notes...in witnesses never questioned...in questions never asked. We feel justice was not done and Kevin MacKinnon was wrongfully convicted of a crime he did not commit. We will give you some food for thought in the following pages.
Motive: The crown alleged the accused murdered the victim because of a previous unpaid debt dating back to 1992 and was owed to the accused by the victim or/and because the accused had asked the victim to testify in a child custody battle and had refused
Reasonable doubt: There were receipts given the accused lawyer to prove debts were paid between the victim and the accused; they were never presented to the court to show that the debt was already paid. The custody battle had been resolved between the accused and his spouse some time before the shooting, so the victims testimony would no longer of been needed.
Fact:A medium caliber bullet was taken from the victim's body and was the cause of death. It was never proven that a rifle was used, evidence actually supports that it could have been a handgun.
Reasonable doubt: The Crown's expert ballistics officer could not prove that the high caliber rifle of the accused fired the medium caliber bullet that killed the victim. The rifle was missing internal mechanical pieces, and was found to be in poor operational condition when examined. The expert asserted there was dirt, grease and other debris INSIDE the barrel. The Crown's fingerprint expert could not find the accused fingerprints on the rifle. Ask yourself...The rifle was in the car of the accused outside his home. If a person had used a weapon to murder someone wouldn't that person dispose of it or at least hide it , not leave it in their car, in front of their house, in the open. Remembering, the police found it there four days after the murder, more than ample time to do something with it. The rifle was in the car of the accused, wouldn't the fingerprints of the accused at least be on it? Were there anyone else's fingerprints on the rifle, they only said the fingerprints of the accused were not on it.
Fact :A man with a very lengthy violent criminal record, a drug trafficker and welfare cheat was the one to give the police a suspect, but only if they would pay him a lot of momey He was of most unsavory character and not worthy of belief in the absence of corroboration to any of his testimony. This paid informant's testimony was the Crowns case against the accused. None of this man's testimony was corroborated.T
Fact: The 911 call from the scene of the crime came in at 9:37pm and 9:39pm. A reliable Crown witness gave testimony that he saw a person fleeing the scene of the crime at approximately 9:30pm.
Fact: Three good decent individuals gave testimony that put the accused in another city between 9pm and 9:30pm. A town at least 35 minutes (one way) from the scene of the crime.
Fact: Four (4) articles were said to be missing from the scene of the crime.The four (4) articles were found in the accused possession, not hidden but in the open.
Reasonable doubt: Would the accused, an intelligent person, be stupid enough to just leave the only things that could tie a person to being at the victims residence and the murder just leave them out in the open? Remember the accused had four days to hide or dispose of these things before the police even had a suspect. The accused was not discovered in possession of stolen goods but rather stolen goods discovered in his possession. How did the accused get these things ? Was the accused at the residence of the victim that night......the crown could give no evidence to show that the accused was. In fact, the accused was in another city at the time of the murder and there was no way he had enough time to go to that part of Calgary , break into a house while there were four people awake and in the upstairs front room, kill one of those people and drive back to the city of Airdrie. There are witnesses to verify times to show this was impossible but this was poorly presented and barely touched on. So how did he get these things? The side window of the car of the accused was broken and missing. The stolen articles could of been planted to be found in his possession. The lawyer of the accused didn't feel the accused needed to be called to the stand to answer these questions. Kevin at the time of his arrest (because of the method used by police to subdue him) was not coherent enough to give a statement, and none was ever taken after that time. The accused and his family felt the accused should take the stand to testify; but his legal aid paid lawyer said no, " the Crown could never get a conviction with no evidence and testimony from an unsavory person such as the paid informant".
Fact: A reliable crown witness that lived across from the residence of the victim described a white male 5' 7", 150 pounds, 18 - 20 years old, dark shoulder length hair, wearing a medium green coat was running along the garage, slipped and fell and then got up and ran towards the back alley at approximately 9:30pm.
Reasonable doubt: The accused is a white male 5' 11", 171 pounds, 27 years old with dark but not sshoulder length hair and the coat the crown presented that belonged to the accused was beige/brown. This witness, shown the coat of the accused, said it was NOT the one he saw on the man fleeing the scene of the crime. The Crown's witness was never asked if the accused was the person he saw that night by either the crown or the defense lawyers.
BR>
Fact: Footprints and a fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime. The footprints and the fingerprints did NOT match the accused.
Fact: The victim was a former roommate and close friend of the accused.The victim cried out Who are you? What do you want? The basement was well lit where the victim saw the intruder.
Reasonable doubt: Wouldn't the victim recognize the accused, a former roommate and close friend of his.The basement was lit enough that the police where able to look in through a window and see the victim and a young women that was with the victims body. So, it's reasonable that two old friends would be able to recognize face to face each other in that light also, would they not?The crown alleged that the accused must of wore something to cover his face and that is why the victim didn't recognize the intruder, this was not corroborated.
The crown applied a new, and unprecedented doctrine called "the doctrine of unexplained recent possession of recently stolen property". The stolen property was found in the accused apartment indicating possession. Does proving a person in possession of stolen property make that person a murderer ? The judge must of thought so because he repeatedly emphasized that it did in his summarization. Was the jury's decision influenced by this...I think so, I know I would be if in their position.
The judge spoke alone to the jury on a question the jurors had during deliberations, the defense counsel nor the accused were present What was said....was the judge again influencing the jury's decision?????????????? The Crown and the Defense each took a short time to sum up their cases. The Judge took a day to instruct the jury. During the Judge's summarization and jury instruction the Judge repeatedly emphasized that "if the accused was in possession of articles stolen from the victims residence then the jury could assume the accused was the murderer". The judge didn't stress or repeat that there was no evidence to proof that the accused was ever at the scene of the crime or that the accused rifle was not proven to be the murder weapon etc. I didn't hear a fair summary of the facts to the jurors, only that the Judge kept indicating to the jurors they could find the accused guilty because of possession of stolen goods and assume he was the murderer. Hell of a price for a person to pay.......a life sentence in jail.......for stolen goods being in your possession.
There was information which we had access to and read after the trial in police notes, statements, forensic reports, etc. that were never brought to light at the trial and should have been. Forensic evidence shows that the rifle that was presented as the murder weapon had not been fired recently. The driving time from where the accused was that night to the crime scene was presented as 35 minutes but failed to state that it would be at least 70 minutes for the accused to travel there and return. What about the additional time it would take to break into the residence, shuffle around till heard and then shoot the victim and get out of the residence and return. There are witnesses that gave statements that show the accused couldn't of possibly had time to get there commit the crime and return. How can the accused be in two places at once? Police notes state there were other witnesses the night of the murder; and none of them after being shown a picture of the accused identified the accused as the person they saw that night. Police notes state that the victim had told his mother; that after he had forced his way into a bikers house to look for something he thought they had of his; the woman in the house said... he was a dead man for what he just did. Shouldn't of this been brought out at trial to show the victim had enemies out to hurt him. Police notes show that days before the murder it was phoned into an detective that a "hit" had been put out on the victim by a biker gang for personnel reasons. Shouldn't of this been brought out at trial to show the victim had enemies out there. A piece of paper with the victims address was found at the scene of the crime, the hand writing was compared to the accused and found not to be his. The victim had a marijuana grow operation, as well as stolen property in the basement where he was murdered. The court records show that the jury was never asked if the decision was unanimous. Possibility that the jury's vote was not unanimous. There is no evidence that the jury was ever instructed with the term "unanimous" and the importance that a jury verdict must be unanimous.
Was An Innocent Man Wrongfully Convicted? We Think SO!
How You Can Help
