I didn't realize that the Crown's own expert had contradicted the cops' testimony.That is an incomplete version and is misleading.
The Crown's own Forensic accident reconstructionist, Toronto Police Sargeant Jeff Bassingthwaite had already reported this completely contradictory information to the Crown!
Yet the Crown, knowing that the Sargeant's analysis, the physical damage and lack of damage to the vehicle, as well as the video evidence, would be obviously contradicted by the notes and anticipated testimony of the 3 witness officers, continued with the prosecution of Mr. Zameer.
Then the Crown put those witness officers on the stand. Already being advised by two Judges, that it would be reasonable to infer that at least the the testimony and notes of two officers were likely the product of collusion. I am only a Sea Lawyer, but whomever put them on the stand would seem to be deliberated suborning perjury.
"A collision reconstructionist is telling jurors he believes a Toronto police officer was knocked to the ground before he was fatally run over.
Toronto Police Sargeant Jeff Bassingthwaite is testifying at the trial of Umar Zameer, who has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the death of Det. Const. Jeffrey Northrup.
Bassingthwaite says he concluded Northrup was knocked down by the car's front left fender as it was backing up out of a parking space, then rolled under the vehicle as it accelerated forward down the laneway."
Again, incomplete and misleading.
The Crown "had a tiff" when "the Crown accused him of having been criticized for his testimony in another case, which turned out not to be true, and did not give him the opportunity to respond."
She (the Crown) started out her cross examination by specifically accusing this Expert Witness of being criticized in another court on another case for his testimony, thereby impugning his integrity. And either incompetently misapprehending the case, or deliberately misleading, or in plain speak, LYING, and trying sneakily to introduce this as evidence by Tucker Carlsonesque making an accusation in the form of a question.
Both Crown Attorney's bring the entire administration of justice of their profession into disrepute.
The expert’s outburst
What the jury didn't hear at the trial of a man accused of killing a Toronto officer
Here are some other things jurors didn’t hear about the case.toronto.ctvnews.ca
"The Crown at one point considered suggesting to jurors that a crash reconstruction expert called by the defence may have been biased in his opinion after he lashed out during cross-examination.
Barry Raftery aggressively accused the Crown of misleading the jury and was reprimanded by the judge for his tone. Molloy later told the jury that prosecutors had not been misleading.
During legal arguments in the absence of the jury, Molloy acknowledged Raftery was "angry and hostile" during the exchange, and said that if prosecutors were planning to raise the possibility of bias, she would give jurors instructions on that issue.
However, the judge said she would also have to include the broader context of the outburst. She noted Raftery’s testimony "started out on such a bad foot" after the Crown accused him of having been criticized for his testimony in another case, which turned out not to be true, and did not give him the opportunity to respond. The judge told the jury at the time that it was a mistake and that Raftery had not been criticized by the court in that case.
In the end, Simone said she would highlight areas of Raftery’s evidence that the Crown believes are “problematic” in her closing submissions to the jury without suggesting the expert was biased or referring to what she called his “very inappropriate and unprofessional outburst in court.”
It's a fine line between "letting your witnesses tell their story, even if not that convincing" and leading evidence that couldn't possibly be believed - and that may be where this goes if BOTH accident experts contradicted the cops' verbal evidence.
We'll see where this goes.
?
