Almost a month after the start of the trial for the murder of an agent of the Provincial Police of Ontario, the crown began its final arguments, arguing on Tuesday that Randall McKenzie shot and killed Greg Pierzchala and Brandi Stewart-Spperry helped him do it.
McKenzie and Stewart-Serry declared innocent of first degree murder in the death of December 2022 of Pierzchala, 28. His judgment in the Superior Court in Cayuga began at the end of March And I heard of witnesses, including forensic experts, people on the scene before and during the alleged crime, and those who saw the coacked after the shooting.
“They supported each other” during the alleged crime, said the lawyer of the Crown Fraser McCracken, qualifying it as “joint effort.”
McCracken presented a narrative in which, after a series of robberies, even a Nissan Nissan Armada in Hamilton, the coacked was trapped in a ditch in a stolen SUV near Hagersville. When a young police officer arrived on the scene, they could surrender or “eliminate the threat,” he said.
The officer listened to screaming in Lacam’s images
Stewart-Serry has admitted to being on the shooting scene and being the woman who is shown in the video captured by Pierzchala’s shirt. McKenzie has not admitted to being the shooter who was seen in the video shooting six shots in Pierzchala. The officer is also heard shouting in the images.
McCrackern spent a significant part of his 90 -minute closing argument so that the McKenzie case is that shooter. He referred to the image analysis comparing their faces, similarities between the clothes used by the shooter and McKenzie when he was arrested hours later, testimony of witnesses and evidence of DNA that links McKenzie with the stolen vehicle and the gun that said the shooter used.
McKenzie’s lawyer, Douglas Holt, used his final argument to make holes in that narrative and argue that the jury should have a reasonable doubt that McKenzie shot Pierzchala.
He pointed out several parts of the crown case and argued that they were not as solid as it was presented. For example, he said, the shooter left a couple of pants with McKenzie’s DNA in them in the stolen car.
The defense raises questions about the identity of the shooter
“If Randall McKenzie was the shooter, why didn’t he wear his pants with him?” Holt asked the jury.
He also argued that the witnesses said the shooter wore a black jacket, but not a black jacket with a red lining like McKenzie had when he was arrested. He said they incorrectly described the tattoos of his client’s face, the brands that, according to him, are not visible in the images of the body of the body.
Meanwhile, McCracken said, the video bodycam was compressed and some fine details were probably lost. He also said that the hood and the shooter’s hat could have obscured tattoos.
As for the evidence that McKenzie’s DNA was in the weapon that shot Pierzchala, Holt argued that “there is no evidence that he was in exclusive access and control of that firearm” and someone else could have used it.
“There is an inference, a reasonable inference, that Randall and the shooter are not the same,” he said.
The jury has listened to McKenzie sent a text message to the people about “shooting with the police”, but Holt said it is difficult to understand the intention of those statements, since Tone does not translate on the text.
Stewart-Spperry’s lawyer to talk on Wednesday
On Wednesday, Stewart-Spperry, Scott Reid, is expected to present final arguments.
McCracken argued that he was a participant arranged in the shooting, helped McKenzie on the spot by making Pierzchala see him and tried to cover up the crime, even when he tried to hide the escape vehicle.
“His shared plan, teamwork, and now, responsibility,” said McCracken.
At the beginning of the trial, Stewart-Spperry’s lawyer asked the witnesses if it seemed intoxicated before the shooting. Many agreed on her.
McCracken said his actions after the shooting show knew what he was doing.
“It is a logical behavior oriented to objectives,” he said.
