Final arguments began this morning at the trial for the man accused of killing 15-year-old Tina Fontaine.
Raymond Cormier, 56, has pleaded not guilty to second degree murder.
Fontaine’s body was found in the Red River in August 2014 wrapped in a duvet, weighed down with rocks.
Court has heard her cause of death could not be determined, but that smothering or drowning could not be ruled out.
In his final argument Crown attorney James Ross told jurors this is “a true whodunit case.”
Ross said to the jury if it accepts Fontaine was smothered or drowned the central issue in the case becomes the identity of the killer.
“The answer ladies and gentleman was given to you by Mr. Cormier,” Ross told court. “Mr. Cormier’s statements are admissions he was the person who harmed Ms. Fontaine and disposed of her body.”
Ross referenced portions of 10 audio recordings which were obtained by police by secretly placing listening devices in Cormier’s apartment, including one conversation which Cormier said, “It’s right on the shore. So what do I do? Threw her in.”
“These intercepts are really the heart of the Crown’s case,” Ross told jurors. “The words he speaks are admission of murder plain and simple.”
“Beyond his confessions Mr. Cormier also had a solid motive.”
Ross told court Cormier acknowledged in the secret recordings he had sex with Fontaine and later found out she was only 15.
“He threw Tina Fontaine in the river because she was supposed to be legal and was only 15,” said Ross. “The desire to stay out of prison is a solid motive for murder.”
Ross told court Cormier was hiding his unlawful act by putting Fontaine’s body in the river.
The Crown reminded jurors here’s no forensic evidence linking Fontaine’s body to Cormier and no forensic evidence linking Cormier to the duvet.
Three witnesses testified Cormier had the same duvet.
“The person who put Tina Fontaine in the river never wanted any trace to be found. They wanted the evidence to be destroyed and it was.”
Ross told court Cormier became haunted with Fontaine’s death and obsessed over it but failed to share any knowledge about the case with police in the six weeks following her death and ran when officers came to arrest him for the murder.
“Believe what he says and convict him for what he did,” Ross said at the end of his final argument.
'There's nothing': defence takes aim at evidence in closing argument
In his closing statement, defence lawyer Tony Kavanagh told jurors only people who are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt can be convicted.
Kavanagh said the jury must find that Tina Fontaine was killed by an unlawful act beyond a reasonable doubt and he argued that Cormier should be acquitted on that basis alone.
“There’s no evidence of a physical assault. No evidence of a sexual assault. There’s nothing,” Kavanagh told jurors. “Can you honestly say Ms. Fontaine was killed by an unlawful act? Our position is quite simple. You should acquit on that basis alone.”
“Justice for Tina Fontaine doesn't mean injustice for Raymond Cormier.”
Kavanagh acknowledged that the way in which Fontaine’s body was found was suspicious, but he told court that Fontaine could’ve died somewhere else in “the underbelly of the city,” reminding jurors that there’s no crime scene in the case.
“The rest of the evidence is so weak it creates reasonable doubt,” Kavanagh told the jury.
He told jurors the evidence regarding the identification of the duvet and that it belonged to Cormier can’t be trusted because police showed the witnesses who testified it belonged to Cormier a single photo of the duvet and not a photo lineup.
“Police tried to link it to Mr. Cormier,” Kavanagh told court. “It tainted the evidence.”
Kavanagh suggested the statements made by Cormier in the police intercepts indicate Cormier was feeling guilty for not stopping Fontaine from walking away after an argument he had with her.
“Because had he done so he would’ve saved her life,” said Kavanagh.
Kavanagh told the jury they shouldn’t rely on the transcripts provided regarding the statements made by Cormier in the audio recordings because the audio itself is difficult to hear.
“Beware the trap of just imprinting your mind on the transcripts alone,” he said.
Justice Glenn Joyal has already instructed jurors to use the transcripts only as an aid.
