Final arguments in for 2012 manslaughter trial

Vandale lived in the home where Nayneecassum was staying on Sept. 15, 2012 when those five males broke in and stabbed Nayneecassum and Vandale. Nayneecassum died of blood loss in hospital after he was stabbed.

Crown closing arguments

Crown prosecutor Shawn Blackman argued that Natewayes was involved in all elements of the crimes that occurred that night except for the assault itself, and that considering all of the circumstances a reasonable person could recognize the risk of bodily harm.

This includes knowing a fight was impending between Vandale and Goodrich, doing reconnaissance by driving past Vandale’s house, picking up more people who brought a bat into her car, driving them near Vandale’s house, and seeing them cover their faces with hoodies – with the exception of Goodrich who did not cover his face.

Blackman argued that Natewayes waited for the group of five as they went into Vandale’s house, rounded them up and drove them away after the attack, asked someone to throw bear spray out of her car, and washed clothes as an attempt to get rid of evidence – bear spray – on the clothing.

These actions encouraged an act were the risk of bodily harm was present, Blackman told the court.

He said Natewayes is intelligent, and in her video-recorded police interviews she made omissions and minimized her role.

Natewayes was “a willing participant,” Blackman said, in a way that is “not trivial or transitory.”

With regards to the charge of break and enter, Blackman said it was “ridiculous” that Natewayes could expect anything except a break and enter to occur considering the circumstances.

He posited that it’s unreasonable for Natewayes’ passengers to pull up their hoods, carry a bat, and go to Vandale’s yard calling for him to “come outside.”

Defence closing arguments

Natewayes’ defence lawyer, Peter Abrametz Jr., didn’t provide evidence at trial.

In his final arguments Abrametz didn’t dispute that Natewayes “helped this crime occur.”

However, Abrametz said Natewayes now has to deal with the emotional guilt of what happened that night.

The stabbing of Nayneecassum was shocking in its senseless and brutality, but Natewayes did not know it was going to happen, Abrametz argued.

He filed a Supreme Court case that addresses aiding and abetting a crime.

Abrametz argued this precedent-setting case says being a party to an offence must include knowledge and some intent.

He said Natewayes was not aware of a home invasion until right before it happened, and that she refused to drive people home once she knew.

Abrametz agreed when a fight is expected, there is a risk of harm but said what happened to Nayneecassum was far separated from Natawayes’ knowledge.

He pointed out that all discussions between the five males were had away from her, and said Natewayes didn’t know someone had died until after.

He also said she didn’t know a knife was involved until days after, and that the indictment for the attack names Nayneecassum, not Vandale.

The decision from Justice A. Rothery will come on Monday at 10 a.m.

claskowski@jpbg.ca

On Twitter: @chelsealaskowsk

[View the story “Tasia Natewayes trial” on Storify]

by paNOW Staff

Final arguments in for 2012 manslaughter trial

What's Trending