Pre-Judging The Matter

The trial of Pembroke dentist Christy Natsis has turned into an unfortunate farce. If justice is to be seen to be done, it looks increasingly as though it will be a miracle of surprising proportions. A man is dead, victim of a catastrophic vehicular crash, caused by a driver under the influence of alcohol, incapable of utilizing normal faculties because of impairment, and causing the death of another driver, after veering into his lane of traffic.

The accused's defence lawyer, a skilled criminal lawyer, expert at manipulating the law, and even more adept at the critical mission of such lawyers of subtly and not-so-subtly bullying witnesses whose narratives do not suit their very particular vision of how they interpret what their always-innocent client informs that is the reality of the situation that they were part of, has turned the trial into a theatre of the absurd.

The arresting Ontario Provincial Police officer, an accident investigation expert, is continually accused of lack of professional integrity, and being personally involved in a conspiracy to have the lawyer's client found guilty of a crime she did not commit -- because she has repeatedly claimed she is innocent of the charges brought against her.

Is it truth and justice that the law and the courts are engaged in upholding for the public weal, or is it skilled verbal jousting and legal manoeuvring, and the ability to pay the hefty fees extracted by notoriously successful criminal lawyers that win the day in court? Without doubt the grieving family of the deceased, Bryan Casey, must be agonizing over that very question, if they are not already cynically convinced it has answered itself.

A waitress at a Kanata bar felt that the woman hadn't appeared intoxicated, but the police investigator doesn't find this convincingly credible. Slam his professionalism. A friend of the accused who had appeared at the crash scene claimed that Ms. Natsis informed him that the victim she is accused of having caused the death of, had crossed into her lane. Slam the professional experience and investigative skill of the expert.

"You rejected those statements, sir, from your consideration and your analysis because they were helpful to Dr. Natsis", charged lawyer Edelson. "That is not true, sir. It's not my responsibility to prove drunkenness or not drunkenness (sic) or impairment or drinking or anything of that nature", responded OPP Const. Shawn Kelly, reasonably and evenly. "...Because of the evidence that was presented before me at the scene ... because it wasn't corroborated."

Data downloaded from a recorder on Mr. Casey's Dodge truck revealed that the RPMs on his tires "didn't show movement into the w.b. lane", wrote Const. Kelly in departmental emails the lawyer now questions. "Natsis may claim that she was in her w.b lane, and she swerved into e.b lane and then he comes back to e.b lane", data that is clearly supportive of the Crown's case against Ms. Natsis, and which her lawyer so strenuously objects to.

"The defence position is neither the report or the evidence of this witness is admissible", insists lawyer Edelson. Holding that Const. Kelly could not be perceived as an expert witness since he is held by the lawyer to be biased, partial, and incapable of trustfully independent analysis. Const. Kelly, he claims, is invested in protecting the deceased from any responsibility in the crash.

"I'm not pre-judging the matter, but the Supreme Court of Canada guides me, as does the Court of Appeal, and it strikes me that the issues with respect to that officer's (evidence) are not admissibility issues. They're weight issues", responded Ontario Court Justice Neil Kozloff.

Can we hope, possibly, in the interests of justice, that Justice Kozloff will not be taken in by this lawyer's obfuscatory and biased 'legal' opinions?