The lawyer for the mother-in-law of the Granby girl tried, in a last ditch effort, to convince the jury to find his client not guilty of premeditated murder and forcible confinement.
“At this point, what I invite you to remember is the fact that the slap caused death does not necessarily equal murder. There will have to be an additional intention ”, hammered Me Alexandre Biron during his pleadings, Monday.
“No one here is going to tell you that the decisions of [l’accusée] on the morning of April 29 are good decisions. The question is rather whether [l’accusée] committed the acts knowing that they would probably result in death, ”continued the lawyer.
During your testimony, the mother-in-law confirmed having added “maybe ten turns” of adhesive tape around the victim, who was already wrapped in sticky paper, on the morning of April 29, 2019. She said however, denied covering the child’s nose and mouth.
Me Biron recalled that the mother-in-law said she had tied the girl up to prevent her from injuring herself while waiting for a child psychiatry appointment scheduled for the afternoon, the same day. He also wondered why the accused would have thrown a glass of water at the victim’s face to resuscitate her if she knew the duct tape could kill her. He mentioned the interview of the victim’s younger brother with the police on the day of the tragedy. He, then 5 years old, said that “her mother” wanted the girl to stop screaming and not to die.
Me Biron also said the prosecution failed to provide “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that duct tape was affixed to the girl’s nose and mouth. “You will have to ask yourself questions about these aspects: where was the ribbon affixed? When was it affixed? By whom was it affixed? And why was it affixed? “, He enumerated, admitting that certain decisions taken by the accused had led to a” sad “and” regrettable “result.
Back to 24 testimonials
Throughout the day, counsel reviewed the 24 testimonies (21 for the Crown, three for the defense) that the jury heard over the past seven weeks. He raised the incongruities of certain stories and put forward the advantageous passages for the mother-in-law of the child.
The son of the accused, for example, indicated during his interrogation that he saw adhesive tape on the nose and mouth of his sister when she was found unconscious. In cross-examination, he said that there was no sticky paper left on his face.
“Did he indeed see the amount of duct tape in his face or did he make a deduction at that point?” “Asked the mother-in-law’s lawyer.
Me Biron also highlighted the testimony of two experts, one who testified for the Crown and the other for the defense. The two do not come to the same conclusions as to the causes of the death of the 7-year-old girl.
Pathologist Caroline Tanguay, invited to testify by the Crown, concluded that the girl died of external suffocation because her nose and mouth were covered with duct tape. Instead, Anny Sauvageau argued that the child died of hyperthermia because her body could no longer dissipate heat properly in several layers of duct tape. The girl would also have died of mechanical asphyxiation, because she could no longer practice her breathing movements in too tight a restraint, according to the defense expert.
Me Biron will continue his pleadings Tuesday morning at the Trois-Rivières courthouse. Publication bans prevent us from revealing certain names and details mentioned during oral argument.