Part of the final summation from defence lawyer Adrian Brooks at Robert Pickton's trial in B.C. Supreme Court in New Westminster, B.C., on six counts of first-degree murder:
“Ms. Joesbury may have been killed by a .22 or .25-calibre weapon. That .25-calibre weapon was not found at the farm.
The bullets recovered from the remains of Ms. Abotsway and Ms. Wilson were not matched to any gun.
As I understood the evidence, it was that 100b (a gun with a dildo fitted over the barrel) could not be eliminated.
The guns that should have been compared to important bullets were not compared.
The spent bullets in site B (the slaughterhouse) came from a .22-calibre gun that is not one of those found at 953 Dominion.
So, of three guns, obviously there is another .22 that is being used inside site B. Where did it go, who had it, when did they have it, in what circumstances did they have it? These are all unknowns.
Don't assume too much, don't jump to quick and hasty conclusions because you have one piece of evidence. Compare it to the entirety, and when you do and take into account these kinds of conclusions, you'll see that the firearms evidence doesn't take you very far at all.”
On the forensics linking Pickton to the six women:
“This is obviously important. The Crown case, obviously from what it describes, puts or attempts to put Mr. Pickton as close as possible to the six women.
I'm going to go through some evidence and in a moment you'll see that evidence, you'll see what it is and what really stands out is how limited that evidence is.
If indeed Mr. Pickton was guilty of these crimes, you would certainly think there would be significant linkages to Willie Pickton.”
On the forensic matches of Pat Casanova:
“Inside of a door to site B you will remember that Mr. Mellis testified that he gave instructions with regard to where blood spatter analysis ought to be done.
Obviously that's significant and we know why that's significant, given what the Crown says happened in site B, given what the Crown is saying what they want to find by way of evidence or expect to find by way of evidence.
This is the inside of the door...
Here we add, against the east wall, we have the two shelf objects ... that has a clipboard in it. Right next to it, earrings that create a match to the profile of Joesbury, a plastic bag that contains a match to a profile of Joesbury. We know as well we have the clipboard and a watch nearby, the two knives nearby, washtub, work gloves, etc.
(Jurors heard that the watch was matched to Pickton, but the items contained the DNA of Pat Casanova.)
Then as well have on the right-hand side, which is extremely important, Wilson and Casanova not excluded from the barn door, a mixed DNA profile.
So here, there was two swabs taken, one was just Casanova, the next one numerically swab 10, mixed DNA profile, Casanova and Wilson are not excluded as possible contributors.
Please note the number one in 240,000. That is significant for you to take into account.
Now again please match this up, think for a moment what this means.
Is it being suggested, or can the Crown seriously suggest to you that when it comes to that kind of swab of particular stains that are shown on the door, when that's done, is it seriously going to be suggested to you that one landed there and the next one landed there some time later?
Could that seriously be suggested? Ladies and gentlemen, that is not the case. I suggest to you that you draw the inference that this association is probably the strongest, indeed it is the strongest of Mr. Casanova. It is very, very important to understand the evidence. It is stronger than anything that relates to Wille Pickton and I suggest to you that that makes it very important for you to analyze that, and think about it.
Think about what Mr. Mellis said. Why are they looking at the door, why are they going there, for the very reason they might get a result just like this.”
Summing up the link with Casanova:
“What we have as we deal with this evidence of Mr. Casanova is it associates him to sites, particular places, it associates him to women. It does so in a way that I suggest to you is very important to take into account. Take into account please how it is stronger than the evidence against Mr. Pickton.
That is probably the key thing in terms of what inferences you are likely to draw. And I suggest to you, when you do that, see the importance of evidence as it relates to Mr. Casanova as compared to Mr. Pickton. Put that into the mix when you're saying to yourself does this forensic evidence provide the Crown the solid foundation they say it does.”