Mathewsie Not Guilty, But Investigation Slammed
Tuesday, September 25, 2012 @ 3:57 PM
Prince George, B.C. – Patrick Mathewsie has been found not guilty of manslaughter in the death of his friend , Sylvan Victor Roy. In delivering that decision, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Glen Parrett called the investigation a “classic case of tunnel vision” on the part of the RCMP investigators.
On July 29th of 2010, Patrick Mathewsie was found lying next to the body of his friend Sylvan Roy. They had been drinking all day, and the two homeless men had been sharing a tent in a vacant, overgrown lot in downtown Prince George. Roy had been beaten, a nylon rope was wrapped around his neck, he had been strangled to death.
Justice Glen Parrett said the Crown’s case “turns entirely on circumstantial evidence. He (Mathewsie) was located at the scene, lying next to the deceased and he had blood all over his hands and wrists, some blood on his face and blood on the front of his shirt.” Justice Parrett says “When the Crown relies on circumstantial evidence, it’s burden remains the same. It must prove that the guilt of the accused is the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the proven facts.” Justice Parrett says the blood could well have been transferred to Mathewsie because they were laying in close proximity, if not touching. He also notes there were no apparent injuries to Mathewsie’s hands.
Justice Parrett pointed to testimony from witnesses who reported seeing other men at or near the make shift camp, including one who had shoulder length hair, was wearing a long sleeved shirt with the sleeves pushed up, and was carrying a back pack. None of the witnesses could identify Patrick Mathewsie as being the person they saw. The testimony would suggest there was at least one other person who could have been responsible for the death of Roy.
Justice Parrett said the police investigation was “less than ideal” and “among the difficulties which I suggest would have lead members of the public to believe this was something that fell short of any episode of C.S.I. are the following:”
1. Despite the witnesses who would suggest there were at least two other people in the area at the time of the killing, not a single police officer gave evidence that they had searched or examined the area of the field (vacant lot) “I have no evidence at this trial whether there were 10 other people, 140 other people or two other people sleeping in that field. I have no evidence before me, that it (the field) was examined at all.”
2. Police moved an unconscious, apparently grossly intoxicated accused and hand cuffed him prior to taking photographs of the scene they found. “They thus altered a homicide scene before it was recorded minutes later.”
3. The police, without arresting or warning the accused, presumably because of his level of intoxication, “began recording his mutterings and exclamations in the hospital while he was receiving medical attention and treatment. They did so without any apparent authorization or authority of any kind.”
4. After obtaining a blood sample from the accused at the hospital, “police shipped it to a lab packed in a manner that allowed the sample to leak out of its vial into the exhibit bag affecting its viability for testing.”
5. No evidence was given whatsoever on “how the rope that was used apparently to strangle Mr. Roy, was removed from the items to which it is clearly affixed in the photographs that are shown, or how and in what manner it was wrapped around the deceased’s neck at the scene. Among the 6 photographs at the scene, not a single close up photograph was taken of the very weapon used , apparently to kill Mr. Roy, despite the attendance of the forensic identification specialist and the body being left at the scene overnight .”
6. “Repeatedly in the course of evidence at this trial, witnesses testified that they were interviewed within the hearing and presence of other witnesses.”
7. “Some 18 months after the accused’s arrest, some fingernail clippings were apparently discovered and forwarded to the lab for DNA analysis. The request was accepted by the lab on January 25th, 2012, the accused was arrested July 29th, 2010. This late handling or discovery of exhibits necessitated in an adjournment for Mr. Mathewsie’s scheduled trial.” The clippings had been collected during an autopsy conducted August 4th of 2010.
8. “After leaving the body of the deceased out overnight on the 29th of July, Corporal Robinson recorded the video (which was entered as exhibit 20) at 11:10 a.m. the next morning. No reason for that delay is offered.” He also noted neither Crown nor Defence Counsel referred to the video in the course of the evidence at the trial. Justice Parrett says he stands by his original comments on the video which he referred to as “disturbing and upsetting” .
He says this may well be a classic case of “tunnel vision” on the part of investigators given the evidence and testimony from witnesses he said the case has "enormous evidentiary issues."
Comments
Maybe each of the police officers involved, as punishment, should be obligated to watch at least one SIU TV show at least once a week and be prepared for a test after watching for a month. No true and false or multiple choice questions. Just a small essay. That might work out for them next time something like this goes down. Maybe these officers were away from class when this was taught and were only there to learn how to collect revenue from traffic offenders. Could happen.
How discouraging the actions or lack of actions were in the processing of this case.
Is it because of a lack of training? A lack of care because the people were street people? Careless behavior because of work overload? Who knows! The reality is that true justice cannot be carried out because of how this entire case was handled.
Without pointing fingers and attaching blame for any one thing, can we learn from this incident and do things better in the future? I hope so.
I think any time a judge seriously mentions “CSI” as part of a judgement, I think there is cause for concern as to the abilities of the judge.
That show has more magic in it than a performance by “Penn and Teller.”
Prince George CSI is a laughing joke if this is what they do. Lets replace then with real officers who take pride in what they do – there are some still out there, arn’t there.
The judges decision bothers me especially these:
“2. Police moved an unconscious, apparently grossly intoxicated accused and hand cuffed him prior to taking photographs of the scene they found. âThey thus altered a homicide scene before it was recorded minutes later.â
He was found laying next to a dead man, had blood all over him, therefoe, was a treat to the police, what if he woke up and had a gun or a knife? Tell teh cops kid that Dad got shot because he needed to take pictures of a suspected murderer before ensuring the scene was safe.
3. The police, without arresting or warning the accused, presumably because of his level of intoxication, âbegan recording his mutterings and exclamations in the hospital while he was receiving medical attention and treatment. They did so without any apparent authorization or authority of any kind.â
Why does it matter if he was told they were recording it? If he blurted out that he killed the man before he was read his rights, does that make him less guility?
Comments for this article are closed.